AUSTIN | ABIA Updates

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by Digatisdi

The June numbers are here!

Some interesting notes:

The jetBlue decline seems to be levelling-off
Frontier: +146%; Virgin America +300%; Alaska +55.5%; Allegiant +113%
Total passenger traffic for January – June YTD was 5,593,403, up 9% compared to January – June 2014

Almost 1.1 million passengers and a 90.8% passenger load factor for BA in June! Up 9% Y-o-Y for the first six months (+12% for June). Very nice!!!


Oh...including the new Condor flight next summer, AUS is up to 50 nonstop destinations.

[jg6544]

The reality is, as heavily invested as American is at DFW and United is at IAH, neither line is likely to be too interested in maintaining a lot of routes to Texas points that don't go through those hubs. Additionally, foreign carriers are apt to prefer those hubs because they offer more connections to other US points. Delta is the only other major U. S. carrier and it seems to be committed to its long-standing practice of having as many Delta flights as possible, regardless of where they begin or end, to fly through Atlanta. I think Austin might count of getting nonstops out of Bergstrom to points outside of Texas on carriers that emphasize point-to-point routes (as opposed to hub and spoke routes), Jet Blue and Virgin, for example and a more limited number of international routes provided there is traffic to support them. But for the most part, Austin (and San Antonio) are gong to continue to be feeder airports for DFW and IAH I'm afraid. Cheer up. When I was in The University, I don't think there were direct flights to anywhere in or out of Texas that didn't first stop in Dallas, Houston, or San Antonio. Austin has come a long way since then.

[ATXboom]

But don't start on that expansion... cause we are Austin! Keepin weird by stayin behind.

[Austin1971]

[q

[atxdweller]

Originally Posted by jg6544

The reality is, as heavily invested as American is at DFW and United is at IAH, neither line is likely to be too interested in maintaining a lot of routes to Texas points that don't go through those hubs. Additionally, foreign carriers are apt to prefer those hubs because they offer more connections to other US points. Delta is the only other major U. S. carrier and it seems to be committed to its long-standing practice of having as many Delta flights as possible, regardless of where they begin or end, to fly through Atlanta. I think Austin might count of getting nonstops out of Bergstrom to points outside of Texas on carriers that emphasize point-to-point routes (as opposed to hub and spoke routes), Jet Blue and Virgin, for example and a more limited number of international routes provided there is traffic to support them. But for the most part, Austin (and San Antonio) are gong to continue to be feeder airports for DFW and IAH I'm afraid. Cheer up. When I was in The University, I don't think there were direct flights to anywhere in or out of Texas that didn't first stop in Dallas, Houston, or San Antonio. Austin has come a long way since then.

Have you flown lately? Because this sounds more like how things were at Robert Mueller than they are at ABIA.

In particular, your comment on Delta reflects the pre-merger situation more than current reality. Besides ATL, today's Delta has direct flights from AUS to LAX, SLC, MSP, DTW, and JFK.

Can't recall the last time I had to go through DFW or IAH (though granted, the majority of the time I'm on DL or WN).

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by jg6544

The reality is, as heavily invested as American is at DFW and United is at IAH, neither line is likely to be too interested in maintaining a lot of routes to Texas points that don't go through those hubs. Additionally, foreign carriers are apt to prefer those hubs because they offer more connections to other US points. Delta is the only other major U. S. carrier and it seems to be committed to its long-standing practice of having as many Delta flights as possible, regardless of where they begin or end, to fly through Atlanta. I think Austin might count of getting nonstops out of Bergstrom to points outside of Texas on carriers that emphasize point-to-point routes (as opposed to hub and spoke routes), Jet Blue and Virgin, for example and a more limited number of international routes provided there is traffic to support them. But for the most part, Austin (and San Antonio) are gong to continue to be feeder airports for DFW and IAH I'm afraid. Cheer up. When I was in The University, I don't think there were direct flights to anywhere in or out of Texas that didn't first stop in Dallas, Houston, or San Antonio. Austin has come a long way since then.

Again, this is the 21st century, hubs are indeed SLOWLY becoming less of a factor. People want point to point service and airlines will cater provided there is enough demand for any specific route. You only need to look at what has been happening.

It's no suprise why carriers such as Allegiant, Frontier and Virgin are growing here and I don't think that will be changing anytime soon. I also see added international routes to specific cities.

I don't think anyone here thinks Austin will have the kind of international direct flights DFW or IAH have but we don't need to. We only need a couple of strategic routes for people to be able to travel anywhere in there world via one stop. We already have one with the London route. Now all we need is a direct route to Asia via Tokyo for example and 95% of the world will be easily accessible to Austinites.

With nearly 50 direct routes current or recently announced , (and I'm sure that number will rise above 50), I'd say Austin is relying the least on DFW and IAH than it ever has before and that will continue to be the case going forward.

[texastarkus]

Originally Posted by Austin1971

I've heard through the grapevine that WN is negotiating to lease 4 of the new gates to give them a total of 10. Right now they are adding new destinations and frequencies and would like to add more but they just don't have the gate capacity. It's becoming a daily occurrence for arriving WN flights to have to wait on their gate.

Sounds like the current expansion isn't going to be enough. I wonder if the airport administration can see the writing on the wall and plan enough gates to meet the demand

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by texastarkus

Sounds like the current expansion isn't going to be enough. I wonder if the airport administration can see the writing on the wall and plan enough gates to meet the demand

The 2003 Master Plan already has ideas for expansion beyond the current gate expansion. How soon they'll get working on this, I don't know.

[ATXboom]

Originally Posted by texastarkus

Sounds like the current expansion isn't going to be enough. I wonder if the airport administration can see the writing on the wall and plan enough gates to meet the demand

That would be a first in Austin.

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Again, this is the 21st century, hubs are indeed SLOWLY becoming less of a factor. People want point to point service and airlines will cater provided there is enough demand for any specific route. You only need to look at what has been happening.

It's no suprise why carriers such as Allegiant, Frontier and Virgin are growing here and I don't think that will be changing anytime soon. I also see added international routes to specific cities.

I don't think anyone here thinks Austin will have the kind of international direct flights DFW or IAH have but we don't need to. We only need a couple of strategic routes for people to be able to travel anywhere in there world via one stop. We already have one with the London route. Now all we need is a direct route to Asia via Tokyo for example and 95% of the world will be easily accessible to Austinites.

With nearly 50 direct routes current or recently announced , (and I'm sure that number will rise above 50), I'd say Austin is relying the least on DFW and IAH than it ever has before and that will continue to be the case going forward.

Let us know when it actually happens.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

The 2003 Master Plan already has ideas for expansion beyond the current gate expansion. How soon they'll get working on this, I don't know.

Neither one of those are the original preferred plan...just to let you know. The original preferred plan was to develop a new south terminal. And way down the road, there is room between the two terminals to develop two additional midfield concourses (I don't have time right now to look up the exact concept figure and post it).

Having said that, I have not seen anything official at if that is still the preferred plan.

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Neither one of those are the original preferred plan...just to let you know. The original preferred plan was to develop a new south terminal. And way down the road, there is room between the two terminals to develop two additional midfield concourses (I don't have time right now to look up the exact concept figure and post it).

Having said that, I have not seen anything official at if that is still the preferred plan.

I did not know that those two were scrapped for the South Terminal option. Personally, I'm not a fan as this might confuse someone who regularly flies SWA but decides to fly Allegiant because of a good deal or something and then ends up at the completely wrong terminal. Plus, you now have to maintain separate security/retail staff, parking, etc. Hmm.

Thanks for the clarification though.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by jg6544

Let us know when it actually happens.

Not sure what you are implying exactly? It's a vague statement to my large post.

Just look at what is going on now. It's happening but if you could be more specific in what you mean then that would be great.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

I did not know that those two were scrapped for the South Terminal option. Personally, I'm not a fan as this might confuse someone who regularly flies SWA but decides to fly Allegiant because of a good deal or something and then ends up at the completely wrong terminal. Plus, you now have to maintain separate security/retail staff, parking, etc. Hmm.

Thanks for the clarification though.

For further clarification...those were not "scrapped." They were to show different concepts which were studied during the planning process.

Furthermore, the term "South Terminal" can be confusing. What you may be confusing it for a to-be-constructed, brand new, 21+ gate southern terminal. The current "South Terminal" was never apart of the original master plan.

Let's call the current building the "Green Shed"...Since "Green Shed," was used a few years back as the "South Terminal" by Viva Aerobus, the title "South Terminal" has become very confusing to some when discussing the airport's master plan. And now, it seems the "Green Shed" may reopen for use by Frontier and Allegiant. The city has already given the idea the green light.

Maybe it should be more correctly identified as the "LCCT" (the "Low-cost Carrier Terminal"). At least fore now...

When the plan was created, the preferred plan was to build a completely new terminal on the southern portion of the airport - again, it has absolutely nothing to do with The Green Shed/LCCT. In fact, should the original preferred plan move forward, the LCCT will eventually have to be raised. Even if they do exist at the same time, they will not both be called the "South Terminal," obviously.

Regarding staff, there will more than likely be no retail in the LCCT. Also, regarding security, airline, ground staff, etc...I do not see an issue. There are countless airports across this planet which have multiple terminals. It can easily be done. It is also not out of the realm of possibility that should the LCCT come to fruition, passengers would be cleared through the main terminal and bussed to the LCCT via a portal like the current Gate 1.

[DoubleC]

Oops, nevermind delete this post.

[drummer]

So, I have no idea if this is old news or if it means anything at all, but Korean Air had an advertisement on Statesman.

[hookem]

Originally Posted by drummer

So, I have no idea if this is old news or if it means anything at all, but Korean Air had an advertisement on Statesman.

I still hold out some hope they are coming. Their comments about no plans for expansion, and the updates to the city's incentive program certainly seem contrary, but where there is smoke there is usually fire. It wouldn't surprise me if there was something in the works before, and maybe still is.

[drummer]

I have no idea all around - I don't really keep up with all of that. I just saw the advertisement and wondered since folks on here have been talking about it.

[H2O]

If you are talking about an online ad, it may be generated by cookies. If so, it could be reflecting your interest in Korean Air rather than Korean Air's interest in Austin.

[drummer]

I suppose, didn't think of that. I've never flown Korean Air...what alliance do they belong to? I typically fly Star Alliance with Air China and United from this side of the world.