AUSTIN | ABIA Updates

[Austin1971]

T

[Spaceman]

Good point.. F1 flys their cars and equipment in 747's...There are six or seven teams in F1 and they are not about to share cargo space with another team..Plus the private jets....this does not bode well..
Let's face some cold, hard facts..The first year and maybe several more years could be logistic disasters...This happens at any large event, no matter what..No amount of planning can predict all possible scenarios..Although it was a more spontaneous look what happened at Woodstock...ACL has had problems from dust one year to mud the next.. The Atlanta Olympics had major transportation problem and Vancouver had no snow..
The roads will be the biggest problem...There are none and widening 812 will do little...Drive out there some time in the near future and see for yourself.

[electricron]

Excellent point, and it was to address these problems that the State created the special funding program for Cities to host major events. Not to fund the bribe to lasso a major event. F1 organizers will get the $25 million, slam bam thank you ma'am, there will be none left to spend to expand the airport, build new highway lanes, provide emergency services, (etc.) to eliminate these problems....

[Armybrat]

What do you expect from a city that won't even build an expressway to it's "new" airport that opened in the last century?

Small thinking is the only way to describe the Austin "powerbrokers".

But they'll keep on electing Tovo types to the City Council.

[hookem]

Originally Posted by electricron

Excellent point, and it was to address these problems that the State created the special funding program for Cities to host major events. Not to fund the bribe to lasso a major event. F1 organizers will get the $25 million, slam bam thank you ma'am, there will be none left to spend to expand the airport, build new highway lanes, provide emergency services, (etc.) to eliminate these problems....

If the city had wanted to use the METF to expand the airport, they should have put up the $4M match like the other cities have. But they didn't want to. So don't blame F1 for the city's back-asswardness. It's up to the city to prepare for the future, and if they don't want to it's their own fault.

Now, the airport will just have to expand using the increased revenues they get from all this extra traffic. Unless it goes to the other surrounding airports because ABIA is too small.

[Armybrat]

At least the new Executive Airpark up by Pflugerville can accomodate Gulfstream jets with it's 6,000' runway.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by electricron

Excellent point, and it was to address these problems that the State created the special funding program for Cities to host major events. Not to fund the bribe to lasso a major event. F1 organizers will get the $25 million, slam bam thank you ma'am, there will be none left to spend to expand the airport, build new highway lanes, provide emergency services, (etc.) to eliminate these problems....

The airport expansion would have taken a while to plan, develop and construct. I'm sure there was some behind the scenes talks with area leaders, but the F1 project really came up quick and was fast tracked (no pun of course). It came about and actually started much faster than most projects do. So there would have been little time anyway even if the City had any kind of funds given to it for the airport expansion. And hey, NIMBYs love to say that if you build it, or in this case expand it, they will come. Well, they came anyway even without doing that.

I suspect the airport expansion will happen in an organic manner as the growth proves itself to support that expansion. Remember, F1 is still considered to be a failure by some, so we'll see.

I'm thinking, too, I wouldn't be surprised to see some private investment in the airport. They're already doing that in Pflugerville and at other general aviation airports.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by hookem

Wonder what the stats will look like in 2012 after F1 hits. The studies indicate that 60% or more of the attendees will be from out of state or out of the country. 60% of 120-150K attendance for the race. I'd imagine most of those folks will be flying in. Plus all the F1 crews and equipment -- 600+ traveling employees plus who knows how much cargo. That's a big bump.

I'm sure there will be a lot of broadcasters and news media and their support teams, too.

I think we'll actually see a new yearly passenger record this year. The old record was set back in 2008 (9,039,075) Last year we had 8,693,708. If - by the end of 2011 - we can have a passenger increase of only 4% over last year, that would put us at 9,041,500 passengers. And so far this year, we're already 8% ahead. If the current growth rate continues, I could easily see us ending the year between 9.3 & 9.4 million passengers.

Then next year, F1 attendees will add to that. Then the following year, you'll have the F1 attendees again and the additional people who will be attending the MotoGP, so we should see a sustained healthy growth rate for the next three years.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by Austin1971

The airport has already outgrown its' capacity. During high volume periods it is almost impossible to navigate the central concourse and the baggage claim level is a nightmare.

You can partially blame the airlines for the lack of circulating space within the airport. Here's an excerpt from an Austin Chronicle article from way back in 2003:

Shadows Over Bergstrom
The new reality puts the squeeze on our 'Austin-style' airport
By Mike Clark-Madison, Fri., Jan. 24, 2003

Originally Posted by The Austin Chronicle

"Airport costs are only about 4% of an airline's expense," he [Aviation Director Jim Smith] notes, "so the cost difference between us and a cheaper airport isn't going to make or break an airline. But [the airlines] are nonetheless aggressive" about containing costs and negotiating their deals with Bergstrom.

[SNIP]

"When this airport was being built, the airlines put enough pressure on the city to reduce the size of the terminal -- by about 10 feet in major passageways," Smith continues. "Now, though, we're in a mode of building an addition to the terminal to house the security operation and equipment, which we wouldn't have had to do if the city had built the Barbara Jordan Terminal to its original size. "But you have to negotiate. The airlines are a community's business partner, since you wouldn't have an airport without them."

Originally Posted by Austin1971

The airport authority is finally breaking ground on the east apron expansion with completion slated for April of '12. They have to finish that project before they can do anything else. We're looking at 2016-17 at the earliest for terminal expansion completion.

I realize it's frustrating for passengers - especially during the peak times - but I don't really see how the airport could have expanded until now because of a decline in passengers (and the revenue they bring).

Here's the annual passenger totals from as far back as 2005:

2005 - 7,683,545
2006 - 8,261,310 (up 7.52%)
2007 - 8,885,391 (up 7.6%)
2008 - 9,039,075 (up 1.7%)
2009 - 8,217,926 (down 9.1%)
2010 - 8,693,708 (up 5.9%)

If you remember, there were plans to expand the terminal back in 2008, because we'd had 3 years of solid growth and that was expected to continue. Back in May of 2008, Expressjet still had some of their branded operations, Viva Aerobus came to town, JetBlue doubled it's number of daily departures from 4 to 8, and some of the incumbent carriers added new destinations. The first half of the year we were up something like 10-12% Then shortly afterwards, fuel spiked, the economy tanked and traffic fell sharply. Then there was the whole swine flu scare and that didn't help Viva Aerobus any. An airport needs continued passenger growth to fund all these expansions and our growth didn't continue. It shrank and we're just now catching up.

[LoneStarMike]

There's some interesting info in the city's FY 2010 Budget about non-airline & airline revenue. (all the airport stuff starts on page 141)

Originally Posted by FY 2010 Budget

NON‐AIRLINE REVENUE PER ENPLANED PASSENGER

Measure Description: This measure tells how much concession revenue is generated from each departing, or enplaned, passenger. The goal of concession management is to ensure that travelers have a wide array of concessions from which to choose and that the leases are negotiated to maximize the amount of revenue received by the Airport Fund. This measure indicates Aviation's ability to maximize revenue from non-airline services and consists of 1) parking revenue, 2) concessions such as rental cars, food and beverage, news and gifts, advertising, airline catering, etc., and 3) rentals and fees for shuttle permits and cargo facilities, property sales and miscellaneous revenue. Non-airline Revenue per Enplaned Passenger is an indicator which is a function of revenue and enplanement trends. This measure links to the goal "Achieve superior financial results” by reducing reliance on airline revenue.

Calculation Method: This measure is calculated by dividing the total revenue for Parking, Other Concessions, and Other Rentals and Fees by the total enplaned passengers.

FY 2009-10 Results: The goal for this measure was established at $11.09. The Aviation Department fell short of this goal by $0.13 or 1.2%.

Assessment of Results: As in FY 2008-09, the challenging economic environment of FY 2009-10 hurt non-airline revenue per enplaned passenger as business and leisure passengers alike traveled on tighter budgets. Although the target was not met, it increased 0.7% when compared to the same period in FY 2008-09. Year-to-date, non-airline revenue totaled $46.7 million, 3.4% higher than FY 2008-09, and the number of enplaned
passengers increased 2.6% compared to FY 2008-09. The passenger increase along with 0.7% lower than budgeted non-airline revenue resulted in the lower non-airline revenue per enplaned passenger of $10.96.

Next Steps: Increased emphasis on commercial development and non-airline revenue will be the focus for FY 2010-11. A five year goal was established to reduce our dependency on airline revenue by increasing non-airline revenue to 60% of operating revenue by 2015. Also, one of the department’s goals is to develop a commercial development plan by September 2011. New concessions will be introduced at the Airport, such as
Nuevo Leon, Hills Café, Saxon Pub, Ruta Maya and Thundercloud. These new restaurants will increase the FY 2010-11 non-airline revenue. Another goal for next year is to create a team to address parking issues and maximize revenue.

And here's the part about cost per enplaned passenger i.e. airline revenue (from the airlines to the airport)

Originally Posted by FY 2101 Budget

AIRLINE COST PER ENPLANED PASSENGER

Measure Description: This is a key indicator for the airport industry. This measure is a function of airport costs and enplanement trends. There are two important components to this measure, landing fees and terminal rent. The airlines’ landing fees are based on the estimated landed weight of commercial and cargo carriers and are set to recover the City’s costs for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the airfield. Terminal
rents are paid by the airlines and are intended to recover the capital, operating, and maintenance costs associated with the airlines’ use of the terminal. Since airlines are charged on a cost recovery basis for certain expenses, this measure improves with lower airport operating costs as well as higher passenger traffic. This number is very important to airlines when considering new or expanded service in Austin. Austin-Bergstrom
International Airport (ABIA) is considered a moderate cost airport.

Calculation Method: This measure is calculated by dividing the total revenue from airline customers by the total enplaned passengers.

FY 2009-10 Results: The goal for this measure was established at $8.74. The goal was achieved by a margin of 3.3% with actual airline costs per enplaned passenger of $8.45.

Assessment of Results: The FY 2009-10 airline cost per enplaned passenger of $8.45 is an increase of 1.4% when compared to the same period for FY 2008-09 and is in line with projections. For FY 2010-11, the landing fee was established at $3.22 per 1,000 pounds of gross aircraft landed weight. Total landing fees of $18.8 million earned through September 2010 were $2.0 million, or 12.2%, higher than the total landing fees earned through September 2009. At the end of the fiscal year, landing fee charges are adjusted based on actual costs and landed weights throughout the year. This ensures proper payments and provides for the recovery of all airfield expenses.

The total terminal rental and other fees of $17.2 million through September 2010 were $620,363, or 3.5%, lower than the total fees earned in FY 2008-09. The method of calculating terminal rental rates is known as the compensatory method and is specified in the airline use and lease agreement. Under this approach, the actual costs and revenue for the portions of the terminal used by the airlines are reviewed and compared, following the close of a fiscal year. Adjustments are made to reconcile any over/underpayments.

Next Steps: Aviation department is committed to controlling and maintaining moderate airline costs to attract future business for the growing Austin air traveler market. One of the airport’s long term goals is to secure a non-stop transatlantic service by October 2015. A five year goal was established to reduce our dependency on airline revenue by decreasing airline revenue to 40% of the operating revenue by 2015. In order to reduce airline costs in FY 2010-11, the airport implemented budgetary reductions in most of the commodities and contractuals, resulting in a total savings of approximately $1.5 million.

Note that it says the landing fees are $3.22 per 1000 lbs. That rate is for signatory carriers - carriers which have lease agreements with the City. Non-signatory carriers pay twice that amount or $6.44 per 1000 lbs. I think all the scheduled carriers into AUS are signatory except for Alaska. (I don't think they lease space from the city - they sublease their space from Delta.) It's my understanding that if the low-cost terminal were to ever be re-opened, any carrier flying from there would also be a non-signatory carrier because they would be leasing from GECAS, not the City (unless the City now owns that terminal).

I believe these privately-owned jets associated with F1 would also be non-signatory carriers, as well as any charters bringing in people to see the race (by airlines not currently serving AUS), so we'd generate more in landing fees (at twice the going rate) which not only helps the airport, but helps lower the costs for the signatory carriers.

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

One of the airport’s long term goals is to secure a non-stop transatlantic service by October 2015.

Give us London! =)

[Austin1971]

A

[Armybrat]

One of the airport’s long term goals is to secure a non-stop transatlantic service by October 2015.

I would imagine they'd be using the new 787s by then for those routes.

[ATXboom]

Recalling an old presentation and plan for apron and terminal expansion.

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/austinair...report_pt1.pdf

Assuming apron is done in 2012 we'd be looking at 2014/15 before we have 35 gates operational.

[the Genral]

I'm curious where the next terminal will be located when additional expansion is needed. I thought I saw a master plan once that included a second seperate terminal bldg. You know, 25 gates is pretty puny when compared to other airports supporting smaller cities.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by the Genral

I'm curious where the next terminal will be located when additional expansion is needed. I thought I saw a master plan once that included a second seperate terminal bldg. You know, 25 gates is pretty puny when compared to other airports supporting smaller cities.

Search: Austin Bergstrom International Airport + masterplan. There are a series of PDFs.... one has all the original options. ( sorry I didn't look for it again to link it). The one I recall being the favored is similar to Atlanta where you have a second terminal that is accessed via a moving sidewalk ( underground or above?) But... that is a very faded memory. Good luck finding those PDFs.

[the Genral]

Thank you MichaelB. Lately I've been checking out terminal diagrams from airports across the US. Ours seems to be one of the smallest for a city the size of Austin, even with the soon to come expansion. But something tells me that's going to change in the next 10 years. Still, as small as our airport is, it is very user friendly.

[LoneStarMike]

Here's the link to the masterplan

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/austinair...masterplan.htm

Chapter 5 was the different options studied. Chapter 7 deals with the one they picked and had the design layout. It was a separate terminal on the other side of the airport with its own entrance (from Burleson Road, I think) Eventually, two more midfield concourses could be added between that terminal and the exsiting one.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Armybrat

What do you expect from a city that won't even build an expressway to it's "new" airport that opened in the last century?

Small thinking is the only way to describe the Austin "powerbrokers".

But they'll keep on electing Tovo types to the City Council.

While I hate to get in the way of a Tovo bash, this is completely wrong. TXDOT has absolute control of SH71 in every possible respect, and the city council very much begged them for quicker construction of expressway (and then swallowed their pride and pushed for quicker construction of tollway) out there. There just isn't much money left for TXDOT to spend these days.

True urbanites would advocate a tollway out there rather than a free expressway, BTW.

[nixcity]

I'm for tolls on the other spots (although it seems like these should have begun by now) but not to the airport. Paying for parking if going is enough, and what a great welcome for arriving passengers, welcome to Austin, pay your toll.