Aviation Board Approves Concession Choices:
http://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/article_383553d2-2b5d-11e7-b9f6-5fbd48b653fb.html

April North Terminal Update Posted:
http://www.flymsy.com/Images/Interior/business%20opportunities/long_term_airport_development/04_2017%20_board%20update.pdf

Latest load factors calculated from BTS. Domestic Data is for Jan. 2017 and international data is for Oct. 2016.

In Jan. overall domestic load factor was 74.3% for the airport. The highest monthly load factor was recorded on WN's MSY-LAX route with a load factor of 93.5% More impressive was that pax traffic increased 54.8% over last January on this route. The lowest monthly load factor was on GLO's MSY-HSV route with a 32.5% load factor.

In Oct. 2016 overall international load factor was 81.8%. AC's MSY-YYZ route had a 89.3% load factor, and CM's MSY-PTY route had a 70.8% load factor. Year to date through Oct. 2016, AC had a load factor of 83.6%, and CM had a load factor of 71.5%.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

My biggest confusion with new airport is how exactly the access road is going to work. the current exit from i-10 is a cluster as is. anyone have any clarity? I dont even understand how long term the flyover ramps will work

DJSNOLA wrote:

My biggest confusion with new airport is how exactly the access road is going to work. the current exit from i-10 is a cluster as is. anyone have any clarity? I dont even understand how long term the flyover ramps will work

This is a good question - there are a lot of unanswered questions here, but perhaps the slight delay with the expansion will allow for road construction to catch up. My understanding is that the "access" road will just be an expansion of Loyola Drive with additional lanes onto the airport property. And the flyover ramp will be extra exits that bypass the Loyola/Veterans intersection to connect more directly to the airport. But I could be wrong on that.

If it's any consolation, people using the long-term parking and rental car area will still be able to use the existing exits and access road and will be bused to the terminal, so the new access road will only have to carry people being picked up or dropped off directly at the terminal or for short term parking.

msycajun wrote:

DJSNOLA wrote:

My biggest confusion with new airport is how exactly the access road is going to work. the current exit from i-10 is a cluster as is. anyone have any clarity? I dont even understand how long term the flyover ramps will work

This is a good question - there are a lot of unanswered questions here, but perhaps the slight delay with the expansion will allow for road construction to catch up. My understanding is that the "access" road will just be an expansion of Loyola Drive with additional lanes onto the airport property. And the flyover ramp will be extra exits that bypass the Loyola/Veterans intersection to connect more directly to the airport. But I could be wrong on that.

If it's any consolation, people using the long-term parking and rental car area will still be able to use the existing exits and access road and will be bused to the terminal, so the new access road will only have to carry people being picked up or dropped off directly at the terminal or for short term parking.

I just hate having this beautiful new airport but visitors having to pass through that area. its very ugly so hopefully whatever they do can spruce it up... anyone know how the terminal road is going to tie into the existing loyola exit at least? all i can get clarity on is a four lane divided highway running parallel to aberdeen but once it gets to vets nothing. the existing setup wont work so there has to be some sort of plan?

[I just hate having this beautiful new airport but visitors having to pass through that area. its very ugly so hopefully whatever they do can spruce it up... anyone know how the terminal road is going to tie into the existing loyola exit at least? all i can get clarity on is a four lane divided highway running parallel to aberdeen but once it gets to vets nothing. the existing setup wont work so there has to be some sort of plan?[/quote]

I can't understand how the flyover ramps seem to be an after thought. Funding should have been bundled with the terminal budget, and completion should coincide with opening of the terminal. This "World Class" new terminal will have third world road access when it opens. Maybe there was a method to the madness, but regardless it's going to be a traffic cluster for the first couple of years. I-10 westbound already backs up at Loyola during rush hour now, without being the primary access point for a busy international airport.

The ramps absolutely need to be completed by the time the terminal opens. The traffic at that interchange will be horrendous otherwise. In terms of the new access road, I know there will be sound walls put up. No one will see the neighborhood with those walls in place.

NolaMD88fan wrote:

The ramps absolutely need to be completed by the time the terminal opens. The traffic at that interchange will be horrendous otherwise. In terms of the new access road, I know there will be sound walls put up. No one will see the neighborhood with those walls in place.

It seems like it will look nice but then bamm just stop at loyola... so Im surprised there hasnt been more clarity on this there should at least be floover ramps to and from I-10 east.. basically the traffice comingand going to the city which is most important

The access roads are going to be done in two phases (at least according to everything that has been publicly released by the airport, city and state over the last year or so).

Phase 1) The existing Loyola Dr. exit from I-10 will be "enhanced" with changed signal light timing, and some additional expansion of the existing exit concrete to accommodate additional traffic. (this wasn't entirely nailed down when I last saw it, just that they were going to apply a "patch" to the existing exit design). It will also include work on the Loyola Dr. intersection with Veterans Blvd. that will add a third lane dedicated to crossing on each direction. A four lane access road will be laid from Veterans Blvd to the new terminal through the green space that currently exists there.

Phase 2) Fly over ramps like the ones at Williams Blvd and I-10 will be added at a future date, but currently are only planned for the west bound exit and east bound on-ramp (just like the Williams arrangement). This is pending funding from the State (and Fed) as the airport and city do not have the funds to pay for it, nor the authority to.

With long term parking and rental staying on the South side of the airport, the additional traffic through the Loyola intersection during most of the day shouldn't be too bad. My biggest fear is taxi traffic. That can get VERY heavy at times and it will likely badly snarl that intersection during rush hour, especially the evening one as there is already a ton of traffic through it at that time of day.

LightningZ71 wrote:

The access roads are going to be done in two phases (at least according to everything that has been publicly released by the airport, city and state over the last year or so).

Phase 1) The existing Loyola Dr. exit from I-10 will be "enhanced" with changed signal light timing, and some additional expansion of the existing exit concrete to accommodate additional traffic. (this wasn't entirely nailed down when I last saw it, just that they were going to apply a "patch" to the existing exit design). It will also include work on the Loyola Dr. intersection with Veterans Blvd. that will add a third lane dedicated to crossing on each direction. A four lane access road will be laid from Veterans Blvd to the new terminal through the green space that currently exists there.

Phase 2) Fly over ramps like the ones at Williams Blvd and I-10 will be added at a future date, but currently are only planned for the west bound exit and east bound on-ramp (just like the Williams arrangement). This is pending funding from the State (and Fed) as the airport and city do not have the funds to pay for it, nor the authority to.

With long term parking and rental staying on the South side of the airport, the additional traffic through the Loyola intersection during most of the day shouldn't be too bad. My biggest fear is taxi traffic. That can get VERY heavy at times and it will likely badly snarl that intersection during rush hour, especially the evening one as there is already a ton of traffic through it at that time of day.

Yeah this just seems to be an oversight on everyones part. I hope they have some plans because the additional traffic will be immense ... well if anyone hears anything or sees anything new let us know. I am very excited for the new terminal just hate to see it be somewhate muted by bad access.

A couple of interesting items in the latest Fitch rating of the airport's finances:
https://www.ajot.com/news/fitch-rates-new-orleans-airport-la-revs-a-outlook-stable

Only one month of 2017 traffic is available, but January represents 7.3% growth year-over-year. Scheduled departing seats for Q2 and Q3 show increased seat capacity of 10.1% over 2016.

10% seems like a big increase in seats - I know NK is adding three new routes and bringing FLL to 2x daily, there's of course BA and DE, and VX coming in September, but even including those that wouldn't seem to be 10% over 2016. Especially since WN and most other airlines will be flat for the most part. Am I missing something? Seems rather late to have more services announced for Q2 and Q3 of this year.

Is there going to be any upgagueing? Could they be privy to the before mentioned mystery additions by DL?

According to another forum I frequent it does appear the state is way behind on addressing the Loyola intersection issue. I sure hope they can get their act together. Not sure why the whole project wasnt done together and the state could just reimburse the airport for the offsite infrastructure. but right now its a world class airport with third world access as someone said before. I think its the real main reason for the delay in opening

May Air Service Update is out. 157 daily departures and 21,805 daily departing seats this month. February traffic numbers were down due to 2016 being a leap year with 849,400 enplaned and deplaned passengers counted. This was a 2.9% drop from 2016. Year to date numbers are still up 1.7% at 1,709,136 passengers.

It's awesome seeing both FRA and LHR in the listing now. The airport was positioned between OAK and SJC as the 38th busiest in the nation through the first two months of the year.

http://www.flymsy.com/Images/Interior/a ... update.pdf

NolaMD88fan wrote:

Year to date numbers are still up 1.7%

That should pick up by midsummer, with NK adding a bunch of year-round dailies, as well as WN adding some "new" seasonal destinations as well.

I think we'll see a nice increase for April and May as well with new flying from WN, G4, and the TATL routes added in.

G4 has been quiet lately. I wonder if they will add anything to replace TUL, JAX, and CLE (assuming it doesn't return due to the NK daily service).

Still hoping for a few more adds past September, G4 or otherwise.

msycajun wrote:

G4 has been quiet lately. I wonder if they will add anything to replace TUL, JAX, and CLE (assuming it doesn't return due to the NK daily service).

Always felt that TYS would make a good G4 route... they know NOLA, it seemingly wouldn't be hard to entice them to come here.

Agreed, and TYS area is also a very popular vacation spot for folks from NOLA. G4 has added RDU to the destination list this Spring.

Well it looks like NK is cutting a bunch of routes to 5 weekly per the OAG thread:

NK BWI-MSY OCT 1.0>0.7
NK CLE-MSY OCT 1.0>0.7
NK DFW-MSY OCT 1.0>0.7
NK IAH-MSY OCT 1.0>0.7

seems that they are not running a bunch of routes on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

MCO also isn't running on TW but has 2 daily on Thursday and Sunday, so still comes out to 7 weekly.

Odd to see so many MSY routes on the list as October is usually our second busiest month.

EDIT: Seems the cuts start in Sept and go through most of Dec, but there are two weeks in Nov that have daily service.

msycajun wrote:

Well it looks like NK is cutting a bunch of routes to 5 weekly per the OAG thread:

NK BWI-MSY OCT 1.0>0.7
NK CLE-MSY OCT 1.0>0.7
NK DFW-MSY OCT 1.0>0.7
NK IAH-MSY OCT 1.0>0.7

seems that they are not running a bunch of routes on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

MCO also isn't running on TW but has 2 daily on Thursday and Sunday, so still comes out to 7 weekly.

Odd to see so many MSY routes on the list as October is usually our second busiest month.

I suspect October is busy with conventions and more business travel, while NK caters more to the leisure crowd. Either way, I find the cuts slightly suspicious because they appear to be only for 1 month.

jbs2886 wrote:

msycajun wrote:

Well it looks like NK is cutting a bunch of routes to 5 weekly per the OAG thread:

NK BWI-MSY OCT 1.0>0.7
NK CLE-MSY OCT 1.0>0.7
NK DFW-MSY OCT 1.0>0.7
NK IAH-MSY OCT 1.0>0.7

seems that they are not running a bunch of routes on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

MCO also isn't running on TW but has 2 daily on Thursday and Sunday, so still comes out to 7 weekly.

Odd to see so many MSY routes on the list as October is usually our second busiest month.

I suspect October is busy with conventions and more business travel, while NK caters more to the leisure crowd. Either way, I find the cuts slightly suspicious because they appear to be only for 1 month.

I just editing my earlier post, but they actually start in Sept and go through most of Dec.

msycajun wrote:

Odd to see so many MSY routes on the list as October is usually our second busiest month.

Not second... October is almost always MSY's busiest month of all.

Off the top of my head, it's only been surpassed once (May 2016) in the last half-decade or so.

Does it seem that NK is adding that DFW-MSY flight back, it had disappeared?

Yes...DFW-MSY was not flown from early November until April this past winter season. NK is actually increasing capacity on that route. BWI and CLE have not even started yet, so that is also a capacity increase over last Fall. IAH is the only route with a reduction in flying to 5x weekly as compared to last year. Overall, NK will see a significant increase in capacity along with three new destinations and one resumed destination compared to last Fall.

NolaMD88fan wrote:

Yes...DFW-MSY was not flown from early November until April this past winter season. NK is actually increasing capacity on that route. BWI and CLE have not even started yet, so that is also a capacity increase over last Fall. IAH is the only route with a reduction in flying to 5x weekly as compared to last year. Overall, NK will see a significant increase in capacity along with three new destinations and one resumed destination compared to last Fall.

Frankly, I don't understand MSY-IAH on NK. Business travelers are going to use WN or UA (frequency, first class, etc.). Leisure travelers are just going to drive if they are going to Houston or New Orleans (particularly those that would book on NK).

IAH on NK is a bit odd, especially if they're cutting the frequency. I think one thing it does is allow for connections on both ends and adds to the network in that way. I think the plane still routes FLL-MSY-IAH and IAH-MSY-FLL which is offered as a direct IAH-FLL service. CLE-MSY-IAH is also well timed and it's notable that they run on the same days. I'm sure there are other connections and IAH offers a few alternatives to go west as well. Being such a short route, there's probably little opportunity cost to not running it.

I think that's one advantage NK has over F9 and G4 - they have a burgeoning network of focus cities, so it's a bit easier to be re-accommodated if a flight gets canceled.

That being said it seems that perhaps the cuts have more to do with crew problems than necessarily demand.

jbs2886 wrote:

Leisure travelers are just going to drive if they are going to Houston or New Orleans (particularly those that would book on NK).

Disagree. I hate roadtrips above all else. Would fly to work, if I could get away with it.

Those UA and WN flights aren't just hauling biz pax and cnnx either. I used them (CO/UA) for leisure all the time to visit peeps in Texas. NK just makes it that much easier for others to do the same.

Whether that's a lucrative strategy for them, is another question.
But no, not everyone's inclined to do a 6hr+ car drive. Sh!t on that.

Also, UA going back to daily year-round SFO-MSY

http://newsroom.united.com/2017-05-08-U ... stinations

Has anybody heard anything about the loads for MSY-LHR?

LAX772LR wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Leisure travelers are just going to drive if they are going to Houston or New Orleans (particularly those that would book on NK).

Disagree. I hate roadtrips above all else. Would fly to work, if I could get away with it.

Those UA and WN flights aren't just hauling biz pax and cnnx either. I used them (CO/UA) for leisure all the time to visit peeps in Texas. NK just makes it that much easier for others to do the same.

Whether that's a lucrative strategy for them, is another question.
But no, not everyone's inclined to do a 6hr+ car drive. Sh!t on that.

I would fly that, too. But my point is that the type of flier NK usually has would rather drive that distance. Personally, I would absolutely fly to Houston from MSY (but on WN or UA).

LAX772LR wrote:

Also, UA going back to daily year-round SFO-MSY

http://newsroom.united.com/2017-05-08-U ... stinations

That was announced back in February. http://newsroom.united.com/2017-02-27-S ... and-Europe

This PR just regurgitates it.

jbs2886 wrote:

I would fly that, too. But my point is that the type of flier NK usually has would rather drive that distance.

NK's existence in market is to *get* the people who'd typically rather drive.

...the whole objective of the ULCC concept, is to attract people who otherwise wouldn't fly.

787fan8 wrote:

Has anybody heard anything about the loads for MSY-LHR?

All I can say is that I'm sure BA is quite happy. Don't be surprised to see this go to 787-9 next year.

LAX772LR wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

I would fly that, too. But my point is that the type of flier NK usually has would rather drive that distance.

NK's existence in market is to *get* the people who'd typically rather drive.

...the whole objective of the ULCC concept, is to attract people who otherwise wouldn't fly.

this makes sense.. last minute flights to houston can be quite expensive and I hate driving more than a few hours.

SunsetLimited wrote:

All I can say is that I'm sure BA is quite happy.

Oh? You know something? ...tell us!

SunsetLimited wrote:

Don't be surprised to see this go to 787-9 next year.

Well, FWIW, we keep noticing that many of the airport's documents (environmental impact statement, being the most recent) calculate their annual numbers on BA running a 789.

What I find so interesting (and to be honest, never would've guessed) is that Y is the apparent laggard for the service. J seems to be selling like gangbusters, and W is usually more full than not; at least from what info I've been able to glean.

They could easily stimulate that if they wanted to.
Apparently, they don't feel they need to. That's a good sign no matter how ya slice it.

LAX772LR wrote:

SunsetLimited wrote:

All I can say is that I'm sure BA is quite happy.

Oh? You know something? ...tell us!

SunsetLimited wrote:

Don't be surprised to see this go to 787-9 next year.

Well, FWIW, we keep noticing that many of the airport's documents (environmental impact statement, being the most recent) calculate their annual numbers on BA running a 789.

What I find so interesting (and to be honest, never would've guessed) is that Y is the apparent laggard for the service. J seems to be selling like gangbusters, and W is usually more full than not; at least from what info I've been able to glean.

They could easily stimulate that if they wanted to.
Apparently, they don't feel they need to. That's a good sign no matter how ya slice it.

Well, we all speculated this route was driven by business demand (oil cos.) moreso than "come visit Nola" tourism - all this to the chagrin of a lot of adamant and unrelenting naysayers on other threads. Personally, I know a number of people who have already taken the flight (both to visit family in London and to connect to Europe).

jbs2886 wrote:

this route was driven by business demand (oil cos.) moreso than "come visit Nola" tourism - all this to the chagrin of a lot of adamant and unrelenting naysayers

Ah yes, shutting them up was quite nice.

May aerial photograph of the North Terminal construction was posted:
http://www.flymsy.com/Images/Interior/business%20opportunities/long_term_airport_development/msyaerial5.2.17.jpg

Looks like they're on the 3rd/check-in level in the main terminal and about halfway through the foundation work for the third concourse.

A review of the first Condor flight. It may not be terribly objective given that the seat was comped to the writer.

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... ss-review/

Excellent review. Makes me more excited for our flight in J class in a few weeks. For the price, the service looks great.

msycajun wrote:

May aerial photograph of the North Terminal construction was posted

Compared to the size of the terminal, that's one rather large plane sitting in the middle of the GenAv apron.

I wonder who it is?

Nola wrote:

A review of the first Condor flight. It may not be terribly objective given that the seat was comped to the writer.

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/ ... ss-review/

Daniel's become quite the little sensationalist (MSY doesn't know how to push back a 767? ...really dude?), but his videos are indeed always well done.

Here's his MSY-FRA inaugural video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiSY7Lj5skE

LAX772LR wrote:

msycajun wrote:

May aerial photograph of the North Terminal construction was posted

Compared to the size of the terminal, that's one rather large plane sitting in the middle of the GenAv apron.

I wonder who it is?

Just to get a perspective on size...


And who knows what the future holds.

Kyoya wrote:

And who knows what the future holds.

The "A" concourse was always designed for only 6 gates (and now 5, since they've decided to space them for widebodies), with an additional 6 "D" gates on the other side as well.

The B and C concourses will have 15 each, with 6 remaining on the south Terminal rotunda.

That's a pretty tight fit, that first gate on the extension and the first gate on C.

Im sure the wide bodies will be parked towards the far end (or at least the middle) of the extension to avoid congestion.

I think you'll only see the 5-6 gate extensions to the east and west, not another full concourse, for a final total of 40-41 gates. The main terminal isn't designed to handle that many passengers and the security, baggage, and check-in areas would be overwhelmed, unless the proportion of connecting passengers goes way up.

I think long-term, if growth continues, they will build something on the south side or at least reopen existing concourse D. It already has parking and good road access.

SunsetLimited wrote:

That's a pretty tight fit, that first gate on the extension and the first gate on C.

Im sure the wide bodies will be parked towards the far end (or at least the middle) of the extension to avoid congestion.

Still waiting to see a scaled diagram with it rendered. They sure are being (publicly) coy about it.

What your thoughts on new/expanded service from MSY?

I'd like to see the following added at some point in the near future...

AA: LGA or JFK
DL: SEA, RDU
NK: MSP, BOS
AS: SAN, PDX
WN: daily RDU/PIT, CUN
F9: PHX (we need an ULCC option), BNA (I think this would do gangbusters against the WN monopoly)
AC: YUL weekend service

I'd also like to see TA/AV return with a 3X weekly E190 to SAP and the return of AM to MEX.