Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SLC Expansion/Rebuild Starts Environmental Review  
User currently offlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4136 posts, RR: 9
Posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4410 times:

According to an article just released by the Salt Lake Tribune, SLC will be doing the necessary studies the master plan that was proposed 4 years ago proposed and going full steam ahead to implement them over the next decade.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/49...irport-terminal-lake-salt.html.csp


DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinesimairlinenet From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 922 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4214 times:

The master plan is at http://www.slcairport.com/plans.asp

User currently offlineworldtraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4192 times:

SLC can try to expand its facilities if it wants but I can guarantee you that if they add costs that DL doesn't want, the hub will be gone.... w/ MSP capable of covering much of the eastbound traffic and AS providing codeshare now - potential merger partner down the road - SLC is in no position to dictate what it wants if it doesn't have clients willing to pay the rent.

User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4524 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4156 times:

Over the next decade? Somehow I doubt that things will progress along even that quickly. My main question though is, how the airport plans to be able to build that 5th runway over the top of the existing airport hotel area when there's a brand new, just built Hyatt standing in their way. I expect some legal challenges on that one.

User currently offlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4136 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4115 times:

Quoting worldtraveler (Reply 2):
SLC can try to expand its facilities if it wants but I can guarantee you that if they add costs that DL doesn't want, the hub will be gone.... w/ MSP capable of covering much of the eastbound traffic and AS providing codeshare now - potential merger partner down the road - SLC is in no position to dictate what it wants if it doesn't have clients willing to pay the rent.

If they do NOTHING, they will become nothing but a WN stronghold, with no trans-border or trans-oceanic service. Financially SLC is in much better position to do this since they are debt free and have been putting $$$ into savings for years. They have the land for a 4th major runway as well as the plans to extend one runway (16L-34R) to 15,500' or more. The Wasatch Front population has more than doubled since the last major terminal improvements were made with terminal 2 (1978) with accompanying concourses C & D. The parking structure came in 1989. I don't see the costs of this project driving costs to DL or WN to prohibitive levels as we've seen in MIA, SEA or YYZ.



DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
User currently offlineworldtraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4089 times:

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 4):
If they do NOTHING, they will become nothing but a WN stronghold
Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 4):
with no trans-border or trans-oceanic service
Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 4):
Financially SLC is in much better position to do this since they are debt free and have been putting $$$ into savings for years

but airports don't build facilities unless there is a source of revenue coming in for them and that only happens if airlines want the facilities.

I'm not doubting that SLC could stand to be upgraded, that the market is not there, or that the city can't support lots of air service. But SLC is still a DL hub first and foremost and even before the NW merger, SLC served a pretty defined and narrow purpose in a network that is growing increasingly global. DL has maintained a hub at SLC because SLC has kept rents low... if SLC wants to mess with that formula, they do it at the risk of losing a significant amount of the air service they do have.

LFCs might come in but they will not operate a hub as DL has with the volume of connecting traffic or the large aircraft that DL uses... and they won't fly transoceanic flights. Further, if the costs go up for LFCs, just like DL, they will have no incentive to serve any more than the local market... which DL could do as well.

The days of massive hubs all over the country are over. The cities that have them generally have all the economics right or have extraordinarily large local markets,... SLC is a decent market but is nowhere close to being in the leagues of Houston, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, or Denver.

I am certain that DL will tell SLC that if you mess w/ the formula you have now that has kept SLC a hub for us, you do so at the risk of losing a substantial portion of your air service... ask PIT, SLC, and CVG among others if there are better off now than they were before and the answer is unequivocally that the airport generated more revenue for itself and the local economy as a hub even after LFCs have had years to come in and fill the gaps.


User currently offlinebohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2749 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4082 times:

Quoting worldtraveler (Reply 2):
SLC can try to expand its facilities if it wants but I can guarantee you that if they add costs that DL doesn't want, the hub will be gone.... w/ MSP capable of covering much of the eastbound traffic and AS providing codeshare now - potential merger partner down the road - SLC is in no position to dictate what it wants if it doesn't have clients willing to pay the rent.

Delta has been working with SLC as a partner on the new terminal. Delta wants a new terminal which won't cause delays like the current terminal causes. The alleyways are a chokepoint during the banks, and many flights are delayed waiting for the alleyway to open up. I don't believe SLC is trying to dictate what it wants to DL. DL has a lot of clout in SLC and DL knows that a higher rent will come with any new facility.

Quoting Aloha717200 (Reply 3):
My main question though is, how the airport plans to be able to build that 5th runway over the top of the existing airport hotel area when there's a brand new, just built Hyatt standing in their way.

My main question is how they plan to operate during construction. The new main terminal and south concourse sits where the current terminal, gates, and garage sits now. Does SLC plan on building some sort of temporary terminal?


User currently offlineworldtraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4067 times:

Quoting bohica (Reply 6):
Delta has been working with SLC as a partner on the new terminal. Delta wants a new terminal which won't cause delays like the current terminal causes. The alleyways are a chokepoint during the banks, and many flights are delayed waiting for the alleyway to open up.

And if SLC can do work in that mindset and improve the overall facility while keeping operating costs low, DL will certainly sign on... I say what I say because SLC has tried multiple times to push grandiose plans which DL wasn't interested in.

With MSP not that far away and DL's relationship w/ AS deepening, SLC's need to have a clearly defined role for DL is all the more acute.

And given that WN is focusing its energy in the mountain west on DEN - which is a larger local market - I wouldn't look to them to add much more than the local market can support either.

I still would make sure DL signs long-term contracts that are as certain as possible..... DLs hubs have the lowest costs in the industry.. ATl, DTW, and MSP - along w/ SLC - all have passenger costs in the $5-7.50 per enplaned passenger; there are not many airports w/ costsw that low. DL has considerable ability to shift capacity around to ensure that its connecting passengers have the lowest costs since the airline ultimately pays the airport costs for connecting passengers.

I hope SLC can come up w/ a viable plan to rework the facility.... it is a great airport and a growing area - and I have no doubt that DL wants to capture as much of the market as possible.


User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4528 posts, RR: 34
Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3924 times:

Time to put on my amateur airport-design consultant hat and hold forth.  

SLC would be wise to heed WorldTraveler's counsel. The aviation industry is looking at a very tight future. SLC as a medium-size hub and so-far survivor of the economic shift against medium-size hubs, can do nothing more important than keep a lid on costs. The "build an expensive terminal and 10 years later the costs will be low enough" argument used by many here about DEN (and, inexplicably, IND) doesn't fly here.

SLC already has widely-spaced parallel runways, and room for more when needed. Lengthening 16L-34R to 15,000' is a great low-cost investment in making the airport more attractive for whatever additional longer-haul flights the hub can economically support.

Perhaps on the terminal design they can split the difference....build the remote big parallel concourse with a cut-and-cover train tunnel connector like CVG; eliminate concourses C and D and the far end of B; but keep the existing parking garage and landside buildings. Keep the existing Delta Connection concourse E, until such time as the other big parallel concourse is needed. And keep concourse A and most of B for non-DL tenants, maybe lengthen A a little to the south if needed.

Such a partial-rebuild could help DL reduce alley delays, but maybe not push airport costs through the roof.

Jim



Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
User currently offlineBoeing1970 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3859 times:

Quoting worldtraveler (Reply 7):
With MSP not that far away and DL's relationship w/ AS deepening, SLC's need to have a clearly defined role for DL is all the more acute.

Are you suggesting MSP is so close that people will fly from LAX to MSP then backtrack to Rapid City or Billings, that they will dump these markets or a that new hub will pop up somehwere else so they can continue to serve the markets they presently serve out of SLC?   

I ask because you are overstating the relationship of AS so your argument doesn't make any sense.


Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 8):
SLC would be wise to heed WorldTraveler's counsel. The aviation industry is looking at a very tight future. SLC as a medium-size hub and so-far survivor of the economic shift against medium-size hubs, can do nothing more important than keep a lid on costs. The "build an expensive terminal and 10 years later the costs will be low enough" argument used by many here about DEN (and, inexplicably, IND) doesn't fly here.


For starters, Delta is involved so WorldTraveler's comments about the viability of the Delta hub are completely out of place.

Second, its probably cheaper in terms of total cost over 50 years given the age of the terminals in SLC. In a nut shell, if you do a retrofit, you get another 10-15 years out of the buildings then have to do this anyway. Why spend several million in upgrades, then spend even more due to inflation to do the same project because you waited a decade? This terminal will have to be built at some point. By waiting, it will only get more expensive.

Finally, the cost per enplanement for operating at SLC is next to nothing putting them literally continents away from being a target for hub closure because of cost, never mind the strategic location geographically for Delta. Claims that this airport is at risk for hub closure because of a new terminal or that the model has changed that dramatically are complete hogwash.

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 8):
SLC already has widely-spaced parallel runways, and room for more when needed. Lengthening 16L-34R to 15,000' is a great low-cost investment in making the airport more attractive for whatever additional longer-haul flights the hub can economically support.


Don't need it but the realignment of 17/35 to a third parallel is good insurance.

Quoting bohica (Reply 6):
My main question is how they plan to operate during construction. The new main terminal and south concourse sits where the current terminal, gates, and garage sits now. Does SLC plan on building some sort of temporary terminal?


You can see from this that there is room to build the processor in the parking lot and concourse train stations without too much disruption. You gradually build the new concourses while removing the old concourses. North concourse would be built first working west to east, then the South concourse again west to east.

http://www.slcairport.com/cmsdocuments/SLC02.pdf

[Edited 2010-06-29 10:31:28]

[Edited 2010-06-29 10:34:34]

User currently offlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2908 posts, RR: 31
Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3851 times:

I didn't find SLC to be all that bad, but plenty of folks I talk to dread flying through there. I guess these upgrades are indeed long overdue!


Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlineSlcDeltaRUmd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3814 times:

Quoting worldtraveler (Reply 5):
I am certain that DL will tell SLC that if you mess w/ the formula you have now that has kept SLC a hub for us, you do so at the risk of losing a substantial portion of your air service... ask PIT, SLC, and CVG among others i

SLC is working with Delta on the plans. Delta is in full support of getting a new terminal in SLC. SLC has been putting money in the bank and has no debt so costs will be pretty low compared to almost any other airport doing these plans. Delta has said they support the idea and want it to happen they just want to make sure that costs are kept down. This isn't a scenario so far of the airport pushing delta too far. I don't think they'll do too much if delta dosnt want it. They are working with delta not telling delta this is what they are doing no matter what. The new terminal and a runway extension need to be done for the future.

SLC in detlas own words "is profitable" which now days is reason alone that delta wont abandon the market. Delta has only expanded SLC to a point now where they have too much service for the terminal space and gate space they have in SLC. SLC is such a perfect geographical location, a growing population, extremely high o&d per resident, and a good economy that if delta left someone would take the hub no question. Delta wont let that happen they will sign a long term contract


User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4528 posts, RR: 34
Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3792 times:

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 9):
For starters, Delta is involved so WorldTraveler's comments are out of place. Second, its probably cheaper in terms of total cost over 50 years given the age of the terminals in SLC. In a nut shell, if you to a retrofit, you get another 10-15 years out of the buildings then have to do this anyway. Why spend several million in upgrades, then spend half again as much to do the same project because you waited a decade?

According to WT--a very knowledgeable source about the airline--Delta's involvement stalled earlier large expansion plans. We'll see what they have to say about this one. Read again; I did not suggest retrofitting, rather building part of the new terminal (which part would allow Delta to realize a good portion of increased hub efficiency), demolishing part of the old terminal, and leaving open the option for building more if continued demand and growth warrant.

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 9):
Don't need it but the realignment of 17/35 to a third parallel is good insurance.

I seem to remember in past discussions, that weight restrictions have been a question for transoceanic flights. Best to remove them as a question altogether. And yes, realigning 17-35 is a good idea as well, even though according to the article it's not part of the plans.

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 9):
Finally, the cost per enplanement for operating at SLC is next to nothing putting them literally continents away from being a target for hub closure because of cost, never mind the strategic location geographically for Delta. Claims that this airport is at risk for hub closure because of a new terminal are complete hogwash.

The airport official in the article (unsurprisingly) refused to speculate about the price. Recent airport projects suggest this design would be north of the author's suggestion of "hundreds of millions of dollars." A project of this scale would likely go well over a billion. Think the Taj Mahal SMF has been planning, that when announced was projected to exceed $1B.

The closer SLC comes to keeping the debt cost "continents away" from hub closure, the better. SLC is a great hub option in a very, very tough national and world airline economy. PIT, STL, and CVG built vast new facilities and/or runways which sit underused.

Jim



Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
User currently offlinejkudall From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 615 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3786 times:

Do you think SLC is stupid enough to go forward with these plans without Delta being on board? Delta has been involved and will continue to be involved in the SLC terminal project. Delta is giving input and much of the latest plans (which isn't shown in the links above, they haven't been released to the public yet) are based on that input.

As of right now per enplanement costs at SLC are less than $4 per passenger, one of the lowest if not the lowest of any hub in the country. The terminal will be paid for by PFC's and bonds. Airlines shouldn't be seeing much if any of the burden because costs are already so low and the new terminal will be much more efficient to operate than the current outdated and expensive one. To compare, DEN's cost per enplanement is around $11 per enplanement and DEN is over $4 billion dollars in debt. SLC has no debt and has been able to pay for all of its capital improvements up to date with money they have and have a surplus.

As for the 5th runway, the airport owns much of the land west of the airport where there are currently several office buildings and hotels which the airport leases out. The airport continues to negotiate for land purchases in the area and will eventually own all the land necessary for the 5th runway to build it when it is needed.

If there is any airport in the country more financially ready and capable of building this, it is SLC. They obviously don't rush into big projects like some airports, they wait for the right time and make sure everybody is on board.


User currently offlinesteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9268 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3784 times:

Quoting worldtraveler (Reply 5):
ask PIT, SLC, and CVG among others if there are better off now than they were before and the answer is unequivocally that the airport generated more revenue for itself and the local economy as a hub even after LFCs have had years to come in and fill the gaps.

I think you meant to reference "STL" instead of "SLC" here?

Those are valid remarks, but it seems that the economy of SLC is far different from those of PIT, CVG, or STL. SLC is growing economically and population-wise; the other three markets, not so much. PIT built its new airport solely for US while it was at the zenith of its economic downturn (collapse of the steel industry). Population was dropping like a brick, and the bulk of US traffic out of PIT was connecting. The O&D back then was less than half of what it is now.

I think a new SLC is worth investing in tho, given all of the above, but I also think that it will take a tad longer than 10 years to complete...



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineBoeing1970 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3734 times:

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 12):
According to WT--a very knowledgeable source about the airline--Delta's involvement stalled earlier large expansion plans.

That was a political move and it achieved the desired result. The person Delta wanted out no longer works at SLC.

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 12):
The airport official in the article (unsurprisingly) refused to speculate about the price. Recent airport projects suggest this design would be north of the author's suggestion of "hundreds of millions of dollars." A project of this scale would likely go well over a billion. Think the Taj Mahal SMF has been planning, that when announced was projected to exceed $1B.

Its probably going to be in the neighborhood of $3 billion all in. That would increase the cost per enplanement to about $10 a pax, still lower then industry average which will be around $15 (some above $20) for major airports by 2015. For perspective, IND is around $14 right now.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23302 posts, RR: 20
Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3708 times:

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 12):
Read again; I did not suggest retrofitting, rather building part of the new terminal (which part would allow Delta to realize a good portion of increased hub efficiency), demolishing part of the old terminal, and leaving open the option for building more if continued demand and growth warrant.

This is a sensible suggestion, I think. SLC is stuck in a tough spot because its facilities are neither grossly inadequate (e.g. Stapleton, DTW Davey and Berry terminals, maybe IND) nor completely adequate even if a bit dated (e.g. MEM or MSP). Something really does need to be done but, as you say, a Taj Mahal is not necessary. It's tough to find that balance, though. I think DTW is actually a good model for the right way to do a renovation: with complete cooperation from the major tenant, and in stages.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineBoeing1970 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3664 times:

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 12):
Read again; I did not suggest retrofitting, rather building part of the new terminal (which part would allow Delta to realize a good portion of increased hub efficiency), demolishing part of the old terminal, and leaving open the option for building more if continued demand and growth warrant.

You can't do that with a central processor design. All the expense and efficiency gains are in the processor itself. The councourses are what is cheap.

As for the retrofit comparison, I'm explaining why you build it now rather than wait.


User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4528 posts, RR: 34
Reply 18, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3606 times:

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 15):
Its probably going to be in the neighborhood of $3 billion all in. That would increase the cost per enplanement to about $10 a pax, still lower then industry average which will be around $15 (some above $20) for major airports by 2015. For perspective, IND is around $14 right now.

That sounds like a plausible cost estimate. However, much larger airports like ORD or YYZ can get away with higher airport costs due to their much larger base of high-yield O & D, and assured role as a hub in a difficult industry. It seems to me that a mid-size hub for an airline with options for moving pax, or perhaps just ceding a relatively-speaking small portion of them, does have a greater need than either of these places to keep airport costs as reasonable as possible.

IND is not a major market, and may well find that its major-airport per-pax costs lose it some of its service. IND defenders here say, oh, in 10 years the costs will be partially amortized, fees will drop some, and everybody will be happy. But is it really necessary to risk harm to enplanements in the meantime? Surely IND--whose terminal was indeed hemmed in and grossly inadequate--could have spent say 35 percent less and still come up with a decent-sized but less grandiose midfield terminal? And still add some additional gates later if needed?

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 16):
It's tough to find that balance, though. I think DTW is actually a good model for the right way to do a renovation: with complete cooperation from the major tenant, and in stages.


It is indeed. DTW went slowly, doing one terminal at a time. And the North Terminal's costs were assiduously kept down. Also, DTW is a much larger airport whose hub role is more or less assured by its large O & D base and great location in the midst of a heavily populated section of the USA. So an all-new connecting terminal isn't likely to wind up underused.

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 17):
You can't do that with a central processor design. All the expense and efficiency gains are in the processor itself. The councourses are what is cheap.

Not all of the gains. Having a double-taxiway system and remote concourse rather than finger-alleys is no small efficiency gain at bank time, certainly one noticed by passengers as a/c get in and out more smoothly. And yes, concourses are cheaper--all the better news.

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 17):
As for the retrofit comparison, I'm explaining why you build it now rather than wait.

II'm familiar with the question of keeping an existing building vs. building a new one now. But does SLC really need that much new right now in a tight situation? I for one would be very wary of taking on all that debt at once. Unless SLC's existing buildings are more or less falling down, and need >$500 million in work *now,* I stand by my argument. A smaller amount like say $600-700 million on a remote concourse + $100 million in upgrades to for another 10 years out of existing landside buildings, is a heck of a lot less than committing to a total of $3 billion of debt.

Jim

[Edited 2010-06-29 13:03:31]


Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
User currently offlineBoeing1970 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3566 times:

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 18):
Not all of the gains. Having a double-taxiway system and remote concourse rather than finger-alleys is no small efficiency gain at bank time, certainly one noticed by passengers as a/c get in and out more smoothly. And yes, concourses are cheaper--all the better news.

You can't get those taixways without the new layout.

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 18):
But does SLC really need that much new right now in a tight situation?

Its replacement facilities and its not a tight situation for them.

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 18):
However, much larger airports like ORD or YYZ can get away with higher airport costs due to their much larger base of high-yield O & D, and assured role as a hub in a difficult industry. It seems to me that a mid-size hub for an airline with options for moving pax, or perhaps just ceding a relatively-speaking small portion of them, does have a greater need than either of these places to keep airport costs as reasonable as possible.

YYZ is not germain to the discussion and ORD's costs will be more than twice SLC costs. I don't understand your point. $10 a pax in airport costs still keeps SLC in the lowest costs of all airports.

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 18):
I for one would be very wary of taking on all that debt at once. Unless SLC's existing buildings are more or less falling down, and need >$500 million in work *now,* I stand by my argument.

As I explained, the major COST is in the development of the passenger processor - more than half the total project cost goes into this alone. Concourses and taxiways are cheap in comparison. They have no debt, taking on a few billion isn't going to hurt them one bit.


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6826 posts, RR: 32
Reply 20, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3561 times:

Quoting jkudall (Reply 13):
Do you think SLC is stupid enough to go forward with these plans without Delta being on board? Delta has been involved and will continue to be involved in the SLC terminal project.

Do you think CVG built Terminal 3 without Delta being on board? The whole T3 complex (Concourses A, B & C) was built for Delta. That hasn't kept DL from pulling down the hub.

Quoting jkudall (Reply 13):
As of right now per enplanement costs at SLC are less than $4 per passenger, one of the lowest if not the lowest of any hub in the country.

When CVG had 500 daily departures, its costs per passenger were also among the lowest in the country. Even PIT had low costs per enplanement when the hub was at its peak. If a hub shrinks, the fixed costs (and often a large chunk is debt service) must be split among fewer passengers.

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 15):
For perspective, IND is around $14 right now.

And apparently the airlines aren't exactly thrilled about the increase in costs at IND, either.

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 15):
Its probably going to be in the neighborhood of $3 billion all in. That would increase the cost per enplanement to about $10 a pax, still lower then industry average which will be around $15 (some above $20) for major airports by 2015.

The debt service on $3 billion would be in the neighborhood of $150 million/year. With 10 million passengers boarded last year, just the debt service would be $15 per enplanement -- and that ignores all the operating costs for the rest of the airport.

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 9):
Are you suggesting MSP is so close that people will fly from LAX to MSP then backtrack to Rapid City or Billings, that they will dump these markets

If they can't serve those markets profitably, yes they will be dumped. Delta closed the DFW hub even though this meant losing certain traffic flows.

Quoting SlcDeltaRUmd11 (Reply 11):
SLC in detlas own words "is profitable" which now days is reason alone that delta wont abandon the market.

Who's to say that SLC would be profitable if the cost per enplanement went up by $10? That's $75 million per year on Delta's 2009 traffic of 7.5 million boardings.

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 9):
Claims that this airport is at risk for hub closure because of a new terminal or that the model has changed that dramatically are complete hogwash.

And I'm sure that people in Pittsburgh thought the US Airways hub would never close.


User currently offlineBoeing1970 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3548 times:



Quoting ScottB (Reply 20):
When CVG had 500 daily departures, its costs per passenger were also among the lowest in the country. Even PIT had low costs per enplanement when the hub was at its peak. If a hub shrinks, the fixed costs (and often a large chunk is debt service) must be split among fewer passengers.

And CVG was RJ city located less than 200nm from DTW. Apples to Apples please.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 20):
The debt service on $3 billion would be in the neighborhood of $150 million/year. With 10 million passengers boarded last year, just the debt service would be $15 per enplanement -- and that ignores all the operating costs for the rest of the airport.

So apparently, there are no other revenue sources than the airlines?  

Better than half of that $15/pax in debt service will come from concessions and parking alone.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 20):
And apparently the airlines aren't exactly thrilled about the increase in costs at IND, either.

But they pay them and SLC's costs won't be that high.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 20):
If they can't serve those markets profitably, yes they will be dumped. Delta closed the DFW hub even though this meant losing certain traffic flows.

Right. Delta is going to dump the entire western US route structure.   


[Edited 2010-06-29 13:35:13]

User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6826 posts, RR: 32
Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3539 times:

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 21):
Better than half of that $15/pax in debt service will come from concessions and parking alone.

They're already getting revenue from concessions and parking, are they not? Is there really that much unmet demand for shopping at SLC?


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23302 posts, RR: 20
Reply 23, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3517 times:

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 21):
And CVG was RJ city located less than 200nm from DTW. Apples to Apples please.

Go back and reread his post. His point was that cost per passenger or per flight inevitably goes up as the number of flights and passengers goes down.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineBoeing1970 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3516 times:

Quoting ScottB (Reply 22):
They're already getting revenue from concessions and parking, are they not? Is there really that much unmet demand for shopping at SLC?

Yes, and thats why the cost doesn't jump to $20 per EPAX. There is always unmet demand and always more money to be made in developing more desireable concessions to defray the costs to carriers.

Lets think about your argument for a minute, since you want to keep going on this:

One of two things are occuring, please chose:

Delta is on board, aware of the planned cost and SLC is moving ahead - publicly.

---or---

SLC is going it alone - publicly - at the risk of losing Delta in this new cost sensitive environment.

Just think about that for a split second and you'll have your answer.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 23):
Go back and reread his post. His point was that cost per passenger or per flight inevitably goes up as the number of flights and passengers goes down.

His whole point was on hub draw down.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 20):
Do you think CVG built Terminal 3 without Delta being on board? The whole T3 complex (Concourses A, B & C) was built for Delta. That hasn't kept DL from pulling down the hub.
Quoting ScottB (Reply 20):
When CVG had 500 daily departures, its costs per passenger were also among the lowest in the country. Even PIT had low costs per enplanement when the hub was at its peak. If a hub shrinks, the fixed costs (and often a large chunk is debt service) must be split among fewer passengers.


[Edited 2010-06-29 13:52:17]

25 ScottB : The point is that if macroeconomic/competitive factors change, requiring reductions in capacity at SLC, the whole thing can spiral downward just like
26 SLCUT2777 : The biggest thing I think you and a few others are forgetting is SLC isn't confronted with stagnating or dwindling market size as places such as PIT,
27 Boeing1970 : Then you aren't including parking as a concession revenue source, which it is. The parking structure alone will pay for itself inside of 5 years and
28 Post contains images Deltal1011man : No MSP can not replace SLC. Look at a map. And because the SLC hub makes money. which is why Delta is behind SLC on the terminal.
29 ScottB : Parking as a revenue source is independent of the existence of a new terminal. New terminal or old, they need to park, and if the airport wanted to l
30 DCA-ROCguy : Absolutely, SLC can get them. Look at the map linked at the site linked in Reply 1. A double taxiway for inside of the remote parallel concourse easi
31 Post contains images Deltal1011man : so it just goes back to, is Delta really going to walk away from money? How do you judge significant? size? then its larger than both NYC hubs.....gr
32 flyguy89 : SLC is still the second smallest hub city in the DL system above MEM. While the population growth you cite is always nice to have, it's marginal in i
33 Aeroflot777 : Where did that come from? Please back up with a fact. Aeroflot777
34 Aloha717200 : My question is, how much money has SLC "saved up" over the years? If they have 3 billion in cash reserves to spend on a new terminal, then this is ac
35 Post contains links ScottB : Delta will walk away from money if their costs rise above their revenues. Let's say, hypothetically, that Delta currently makes about $5 in profit, o
36 Post contains links and images Boeing1970 : So when the new terminal completely built out in 2020 opens (more like 2025 for full buld out) it'll be a little early and a lot more airfield effici
37 Cubsrule : You're trying to argue with facts (again). If Delta's costs rise above revenues, Delta will leave. With MSP, SEA, and LAX, there's very little flow t
38 Boeing1970 : And your entire argument assumes that those costs will rise above Delta's revenues. The only way that will happen is if SLC is doing this without Del
39 Cubsrule : Where had anyone argued that? They all built new terminals. Did their parking revenues increase? STL and PIT brought "unique connecting flow" to the
40 Aloha717200 : Are these numbers mainline + connection? If ScottB is correct that there are 95 mainline departures per day, then that leaves 239 connection departur
41 Post contains images Boeing1970 : Your argument is that Delta woudl leave because of cost. For that to be true, Delta would have be completely out fo touch with this entire program. G
42 Cubsrule : All right - let's make it more apples to apples. How is SLC different from DFW - a hub Delta closed. Yes. If costs get too high, Delta will leave. Do
43 Boeing1970 : Hmmm.. Does AA have a hub at SLC with 100% route overlap? There are those darn Apples and Oranges again. No, and that's not what I've said. I have ne
44 Cubsrule : Sure - but your answer in no way tells us whether parking revenues went up, went down, or stayed the same. Not at all. You suggest that connecting fl
45 Boeing1970 : That is not what I said at all (by the way put down your Airport Systems text book). I said its strength is the connective flow. The basin isn't larg
46 ScottB : And yet you still can't argue with the FACT that DTW, with enormous, modern parking garages located next to its two new terminals only pulls in 50 ce
47 Boeing1970 : You're using total pax at a major hub to determine the revenue per pax from parking? Did their cars fly with them? I'd be astounded if there weren't,
48 Cubsrule : I'm familiar with how the construction of DEN affected to Continental hub in Denver... Given that DTW has a higher percentage of O&D passengers,
49 Boeing1970 : Denver was the perfect storm of a build it because and an airline on its death bed, never the less, no one bothered to smack Denver around which was
50 ScottB : DL only gets to run the entire project if they'll be the sole/master tenant of the new terminal -- as they were at DTW. And even at ATL, there was pu
51 flyguy89 : Why do you keep belaboring the subject? All anyone is trying to say is that if the cost of the project drives up airport costs and fees above what DL
52 ScottB : How much of that billion in net assets will be written down when the wrecking balls swing? But if we're talking about costs per enplanement for a new
53 Boeing1970 : And its a fallacy to believe that Delta (and Southwest for that matter) will let that happen so posting cautionary statements about costs driving a D
54 ScottB : I looked at the balance sheet; SLC has $706 million in capital assets and $166 million in cash/equivalents. About $545 million (present value) of the
55 flyguy89 : No, there is no fallacy being committed and there is nothing to "get". The fact is there is precedence for inept airport authorities ticking off thei
56 Jetlanta : My god this is a bunch of silly nonsense! SLC is a key strategic part of the Delta network. It's also a rapidly growing market with excellent demograp
57 SLCUT2777 : And if it becomes too much of a "good ole boy" type of expansion operation as has been the case more recently at ATL, then it probably won't fly. I t
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
SLC To Start Long Awaited Expansion posted Mon Oct 1 2007 20:16:04 by SLCUT2777
SLC $1 Billion USD Expansion posted Tue Oct 10 2006 01:52:12 by Acjflyer
DL Starts SLC-OGG-SLC (Maui) Today! posted Sun May 1 2005 20:35:38 by AV8AJET
DL Starts BUR-ATL, BUR-SLC posted Tue Aug 17 2004 23:02:59 by Sebwhite
Information (Environmental) About O'hare Expansion posted Thu Dec 13 2001 02:55:56 by 747-600X
Aeromexico Starts SLC TODAY!Congrats! posted Tue Dec 11 2001 06:21:46 by Javomd88
OS Long Haul Expansion posted Sat Jun 26 2010 09:57:28 by miaintl
British Airways Expansion Plans posted Fri Jun 25 2010 05:40:22 by BAfan
Warsaw - Hanoi By LOT Polish Starts 19Oct2010 posted Thu Jun 24 2010 00:50:03 by LOT767SP-LPA
Royal Brunei 777 Starts BWN - DXB - LHR posted Fri Jun 18 2010 19:49:21 by Fauzi