HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1301  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2014, 4:53 PM
texastarkus texastarkus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Far Sub-Urban San Antonio
Posts: 443
Daily Non-Stop To Seoul

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoot View Post
Interesting...Seoul, who was No. 4 on the list had 83% more travelers than did Vancouver at No. 5 (and growing). Quite an gap developing...
With Fort Hood only 80ish miles to the north via SH 195 then to the I-130 Toll Way and all of the San Antonio military bases 80ish miles to the south via I-10 then to the I-130 Toll Way [or I-35 to the I-45 Toll Way to the I-130 Toll Way] a daily flight to Seoul would make the soldiers coming to and from Korea happy since they don't have to go thru Dallas/Fort Worth or Houston or Atlanta. Then change planes for airports in San Antonio or Killeen. An added benefit would be the I-130 Toll Way would keep them from having to drive in Austin traffic and correct me if I am wrong military vehicles do not pay tolls. A couple Greyhound type busses a day to and from the Austin airport serving the military bases would make the trip very enjoyable.
Add to this the huge Asian population in the Austin/San Antonio/Killeen areas a daily non-stop to Seoul is a no-brainer. This is just passengers I wonder what cargo would add to it.

Last edited by texastarkus; Jun 7, 2014 at 10:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1302  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2014, 5:16 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Where the lights are much brighter
Posts: 12,016
Plus there has been a steady amount of business travel between Austin and Korea during the past few years due to the large Samsung facility in Austin.
__________________
Follow The ATX on X:
https://twitter.com/TheATX1

Things will be great when you're downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1303  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2014, 8:43 PM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneStarMike View Post
BA load factor in March was 79.8% by my calculations

see this post
Oops...you're correct.
__________________
AUSTIN (City): 974,447 +1.30% - '20-'22 | AUSTIN MSA (5 counties): 2,421,115 +6.03% - '20-'22
SAN ANTONIO (City): 1,472,909 +2.69% - '20-'22 | SAN ANTONIO MSA (8 counties): 2,655,342 +3.80% - '20-'22
AUS-SAT REGION (MSAs/13 counties): 5,076,457 +4.85% - '20-'22 | *SRC: US Census*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1304  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2014, 9:01 PM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 3,249
Is it confirmed that BA is utilizing a 777 for its flights on Monday? I just looked at BA's website and it says that they are still using the B788 and the flight only has Business Class seats available (economy is completely booked).
__________________
AUSTIN (City): 974,447 +1.30% - '20-'22 | AUSTIN MSA (5 counties): 2,421,115 +6.03% - '20-'22
SAN ANTONIO (City): 1,472,909 +2.69% - '20-'22 | SAN ANTONIO MSA (8 counties): 2,655,342 +3.80% - '20-'22
AUS-SAT REGION (MSAs/13 counties): 5,076,457 +4.85% - '20-'22 | *SRC: US Census*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1305  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2014, 11:43 PM
Austin1971 Austin1971 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 827
[q

Last edited by Austin1971; Jan 24, 2020 at 10:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1306  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2014, 5:36 PM
Austin1971 Austin1971 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 827
T

Last edited by Austin1971; Jan 24, 2020 at 10:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1307  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 8:45 PM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austin1971 View Post
The upgauge to the 772 I believe is to increase cargo capacity and it would be daily.

As the gates are currently configured it's not possible to have two widebody's parked at the same time. I've seen the 788 and a 739 using 2 and 3 at the same time. Air Ops told me that they would be very weary of parking anything larger than that. A 752 might fit but it would be tight with only a few feet to spare.
What about with the new expansion to the east concourse?
__________________
AUSTIN (City): 974,447 +1.30% - '20-'22 | AUSTIN MSA (5 counties): 2,421,115 +6.03% - '20-'22
SAN ANTONIO (City): 1,472,909 +2.69% - '20-'22 | SAN ANTONIO MSA (8 counties): 2,655,342 +3.80% - '20-'22
AUS-SAT REGION (MSAs/13 counties): 5,076,457 +4.85% - '20-'22 | *SRC: US Census*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1308  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 8:46 PM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 3,249
United B772 was on tarmac this afternoon...
__________________
AUSTIN (City): 974,447 +1.30% - '20-'22 | AUSTIN MSA (5 counties): 2,421,115 +6.03% - '20-'22
SAN ANTONIO (City): 1,472,909 +2.69% - '20-'22 | SAN ANTONIO MSA (8 counties): 2,655,342 +3.80% - '20-'22
AUS-SAT REGION (MSAs/13 counties): 5,076,457 +4.85% - '20-'22 | *SRC: US Census*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1309  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 9:11 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,732
With all the buzz about other international carriers possibly coming, you would think the east terminal expansion would accommodate wide bodied aircraft. I would assume the expansion plans can be altered if need be. It would be stupid not to expect wide bodied aircraft in the future.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1310  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 9:34 PM
LoneStarMike's Avatar
LoneStarMike LoneStarMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawgboy View Post
With all the buzz about other international carriers possibly coming, you would think the east terminal expansion would accommodate wide bodied aircraft.
I suspect it will. If you look at this 2008 Capital Improvement Program on page 5

https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/de.../CIP_Part1.pdf

it says the east concourse will be extended 600 feet to allow for nine new gates. The fact that the current plans only call for seven new gates instead of nine leads me to believe that the gates will be spaced further apart, allowing for bigger aircraft.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1311  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2014, 10:04 PM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneStarMike View Post
I suspect it will. If you look at this 2008 Capital Improvement Program on page 5

https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/de.../CIP_Part1.pdf

it says the east concourse will be extended 600 feet to allow for nine new gates. The fact that the current plans only call for seven new gates instead of nine leads me to believe that the gates will be spaced further apart, allowing for bigger aircraft.
Thanks for the link. That report was written back in 2008 (a year before negotiations with BA began). The 9 gate expansion includes one gate for MD-11 sized aircraft and the remaining are designed to concurrently handle B752 aircraft (or smaller).

I'm hoping that now the city is talking about a 7 gate expansion that it means they removed two gates to make room for 2-3 wide-body gates in total?!?

I'd still like to see four swing gates with the new east expansion (with at least two designed to concurrently handle wide body aircraft).
__________________
AUSTIN (City): 974,447 +1.30% - '20-'22 | AUSTIN MSA (5 counties): 2,421,115 +6.03% - '20-'22
SAN ANTONIO (City): 1,472,909 +2.69% - '20-'22 | SAN ANTONIO MSA (8 counties): 2,655,342 +3.80% - '20-'22
AUS-SAT REGION (MSAs/13 counties): 5,076,457 +4.85% - '20-'22 | *SRC: US Census*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1312  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2014, 5:58 AM
Austin1971 Austin1971 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 827
[q

Last edited by Austin1971; Jan 24, 2020 at 10:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1313  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2014, 11:36 PM
Digatisdi's Avatar
Digatisdi Digatisdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Downtown Austin
Posts: 415
April traffic figures have been released looks like total passenger traffic is up 4.5%

They also released an update on the East Terminal Infill project
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1314  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2014, 3:16 AM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digatisdi View Post
April traffic figures have been released looks like total passenger traffic is up 4.5%
Some intersting observations:

British Airways is not too far off from catching Virgin in passenger traffic!

The gap between Allegiant and Aeromar is huge making me wonder if Aeromar's service here is even viable long term. There hasn't been any increase in growth. They aren't just dead last, they are dead last by a good amount.

So my questions, to those who are in the know are as follows. How long will it be before we either see changes to the Aeromar service or they stop service altogether? If they do end up leaving, will that open up an opportunity for a new airline to come into the market (possibly an international carrier), before the east terminal expansion is complete?
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1315  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2014, 3:39 AM
DoubleC's Avatar
DoubleC DoubleC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 309
British Airways carried 7102 passengers in April...so would the daily be...236 passengers?! That's more than a 787 carries, so looks like I calculated something incorrectly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1316  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2014, 3:43 AM
sammyk sammyk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleC View Post
British Airways carried 7102 passengers in April...so would the daily be...236 passengers?! That's more than a 787 carries, so looks like I calculated something incorrectly.
You have to count 2 flights per day, in bound and outbound. Also, I don't think the flight was daily in April. Still 5x weekly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1317  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2014, 4:00 AM
LoneStarMike's Avatar
LoneStarMike LoneStarMike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 2,263
Yes, during April the BA flight was still at 5 times per week (Daily except Wednesday and Saturday.) That leaves 21 roundtrips for the month of April or 42 flights. Each flight holds 214. 42 X 214 = 8,988. 7102 passengers carried works out to about 169 passengers per flight or a load factor of 79%.

As for Aeromar, it's not really surprising that the gap between Aeromar and Allegiant is huge. Allegiant flies to Las Vegas 4 times per week using mainline jets seating over 150 passengers. Aeromar operates 5 times per week (M-F) with 50 seat regional jets. If Aeromar filled 1074 out of 2200 available seats in April, that works out to about a 49% load factor.

Mexico City was one of the target markets that qualified for incentives, so even though they may not be flying very many people, that - with the incentives - may be enough to make them profitable. Plus, we don't know what kind of fares they are getting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1318  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2014, 4:03 AM
austlar1 austlar1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin
Posts: 3,428
AA just started daily non stops out of DFW both to Hong Kong and Shanghai. Additionally, DFW has two daily non stops to Seoul and two to Tokyo. Quantas is going to start using a giant A380 daily on the Sydney/DFW route starting in September. They currently use a 747 on the route and stop in Brisbane on the return. The service in September will be non stop in both directions. The Brisbane service will be dropped. Houston also has one or more non stops to Tokyo and Seoul. I guess there is room for a Austin non stop to Seoul, but the competition would be fierce. DFW seems to be on a roll in terms of bulking up on international flights.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1319  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2014, 5:58 PM
DoubleC's Avatar
DoubleC DoubleC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 309
Speaking of which, has Aeromexico ever flown AUS-MEX? I still think connecting Austin to another major hub would give people another reason to fly into Mexico City, even if it were on their regional jets.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1320  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2014, 7:02 PM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by austlar1 View Post
DFW seems to be on a roll in terms of bulking up on international flights.
Yes, they have been trying for years. Houston has had them beat for a long time. DFW is finally catching up.

Congrats to DFW and IAH!

I will stop now...this is a thread about ABIA, not DFW or IAH.
__________________
AUSTIN (City): 974,447 +1.30% - '20-'22 | AUSTIN MSA (5 counties): 2,421,115 +6.03% - '20-'22
SAN ANTONIO (City): 1,472,909 +2.69% - '20-'22 | SAN ANTONIO MSA (8 counties): 2,655,342 +3.80% - '20-'22
AUS-SAT REGION (MSAs/13 counties): 5,076,457 +4.85% - '20-'22 | *SRC: US Census*
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:09 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.