Vctony wrote:

PHX - BNA/CLE/COS/CVG/MSY/TUL are the biggest remaining holes I see (especially if they consider FLL and MIA to be the same market). They've now filled in 2 holes (OKC and RDU). I'd imagine WN's presence on BNA/CLE/MSY/TUL probably hurts their chances of getting an AA nonstop (although OKC and RDU both have daily WN service).

wn676 wrote:

Vctony wrote:

PHX - BNA/CLE/COS/CVG/MSY/TUL are the biggest remaining holes I see (especially if they consider FLL and MIA to be the same market). They've now filled in 2 holes (OKC and RDU). I'd imagine WN's presence on BNA/CLE/MSY/TUL probably hurts their chances of getting an AA nonstop (although OKC and RDU both have daily WN service).

Didn’t AA attempt PHX-CLE right after the merger? Seemed like it didn’t last too long afterwards.

wn676 wrote:

Didn’t AA attempt PHX-CLE right after the merger? Seemed like it didn’t last too long afterwards.

jplatts wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Neither CVG or BNA are within realistic range of the CR7/CR9 year-round. The year-round range drops off at around 1300 miles for an effective payload. BNA might be marginable with the CR7 but no way that CVG is. Not to mention, that is a long distance in the smaller CRJ cabin and there are no current E175s based in PHX (nor are there plans to be).

Both AS and DL previously operated regional jets on the SEA-MKE nonstop route, which is longer than the PHX-BNA and PHX-CVG nonstop routes, but both AS and DL have since upgauged their SEA-MKE nonstop flights to mainline aircraft.

There are a few nonstop routes longer than PHX-CVG that are operated on regional jets, including SEA-DAL on AS, PDX-DAL on AS, SFO-MSN on UA, and SFO-STL on UA.

American Eagle currently operates a few nonstop routes that are longer than PHX-BNA on regional jets such as DFW-YYC, DFW-YUL, and MIA-MSP.

cathay747 wrote:

jplatts wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Neither CVG or BNA are within realistic range of the CR7/CR9 year-round. The year-round range drops off at around 1300 miles for an effective payload. BNA might be marginable with the CR7 but no way that CVG is. Not to mention, that is a long distance in the smaller CRJ cabin and there are no current E175s based in PHX (nor are there plans to be).

Both AS and DL previously operated regional jets on the SEA-MKE nonstop route, which is longer than the PHX-BNA and PHX-CVG nonstop routes, but both AS and DL have since upgauged their SEA-MKE nonstop flights to mainline aircraft.

There are a few nonstop routes longer than PHX-CVG that are operated on regional jets, including SEA-DAL on AS, PDX-DAL on AS, SFO-MSN on UA, and SFO-STL on UA.

American Eagle currently operates a few nonstop routes that are longer than PHX-BNA on regional jets such as DFW-YYC, DFW-YUL, and MIA-MSP.

That may be, but what he was trying to point out (I believe) is that the range with an effective payload falls during our "hot months" with our temps here in PHX obviously WAY higher than what you have in SEA, PDX, SFO etc., hence his saying "year-round range".

jplatts wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Neither CVG or BNA are within realistic range of the CR7/CR9 year-round. The year-round range drops off at around 1300 miles for an effective payload. BNA might be marginable with the CR7 but no way that CVG is. Not to mention, that is a long distance in the smaller CRJ cabin and there are no current E175s based in PHX (nor are there plans to be).

Both AS and DL previously operated regional jets on the SEA-MKE nonstop route, which is longer than the PHX-BNA and PHX-CVG nonstop routes, but both AS and DL have since upgauged their SEA-MKE nonstop flights to mainline aircraft.

There are a few nonstop routes longer than PHX-CVG that are operated on regional jets, including SEA-DAL on AS, PDX-DAL on AS, SFO-MSN on UA, and SFO-STL on UA.

American Eagle currently operates a few nonstop routes that are longer than PHX-BNA on regional jets such as DFW-YYC, DFW-YUL, and MIA-MSP.

oosnowrat wrote:

jplatts wrote:

American Eagle currently operates a few nonstop routes that are longer than PHX-BNA on regional jets such as DFW-YYC, DFW-YUL, and MIA-MSP.

Most of those routes are/were E175s, no?

jplatts wrote:

oosnowrat wrote:

jplatts wrote:

American Eagle currently operates a few nonstop routes that are longer than PHX-BNA on regional jets such as DFW-YYC, DFW-YUL, and MIA-MSP.

Most of those routes are/were E175s, no?

American Eagle operates DFW-YYC, DFW-YUL, and MIA-MSP nonstop flights using E175 regional jets.

Vctony wrote:

wn676 wrote:

Vctony wrote:

PHX - BNA/CLE/COS/CVG/MSY/TUL are the biggest remaining holes I see (especially if they consider FLL and MIA to be the same market). They've now filled in 2 holes (OKC and RDU). I'd imagine WN's presence on BNA/CLE/MSY/TUL probably hurts their chances of getting an AA nonstop (although OKC and RDU both have daily WN service).

Didn’t AA attempt PHX-CLE right after the merger? Seemed like it didn’t last too long afterwards.

AA did. I think it only lasted about 6 months or so. If I'm not mistaken it may have been shortly after UA discontinued service to on PHX-CLE.

jplatts wrote:

oosnowrat wrote:

jplatts wrote:

American Eagle currently operates a few nonstop routes that are longer than PHX-BNA on regional jets such as DFW-YYC, DFW-YUL, and MIA-MSP.

Most of those routes are/were E175s, no?

American Eagle operates DFW-YYC, DFW-YUL, and MIA-MSP nonstop flights using E175 regional jets.

cathay747 wrote:

That may be, but what he was trying to point out (I believe) is that the range with an effective payload falls during our "hot months" with our temps here in PHX obviously WAY higher than what you have in SEA, PDX, SFO etc., hence his saying "year-round range".

alasizon wrote:

jplatts wrote:

oosnowrat wrote:

Most of those routes are/were E175s, no?

American Eagle operates DFW-YYC, DFW-YUL, and MIA-MSP nonstop flights using E175 regional jets.

All of which operate north/south for the most part and as such aren't subject to the strength of the winds in the winter.

cathay747 wrote:

That may be, but what he was trying to point out (I believe) is that the range with an effective payload falls during our "hot months" with our temps here in PHX obviously WAY higher than what you have in SEA, PDX, SFO etc., hence his saying "year-round range".

My point was actually winter, summer can usually carry a decent payload of around 18k-19k. CR9s can only carry a bit over 19k worth of fuel while E175s are a bit over 20k. When flying E/W during the winter, the fuel can take a bit of a hit on the performance of the aircraft. Also, the weather west of the Appalachians south of the Ohio River tends to be widespread which typically means the distance from the destination to a viable alternate is a bit longer than normal.

For example, PHX-MEM during the winter on the CR9 is typically weight restricted to a payload closer to 16k assuming an alternate (which is probably about 60% of the time E/B). Adding another couple hundred miles to BNA will likely drop it down some. W/B the flight is restricted a little less assuming the runway is only wet or dry.
Its not uncommon

atcsundevil wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

Thank you for the insight couple of questions.
- What are the pros & cons of converting IWA from Class D to Class C? Why would their be resistance to such a change

Well, it depends on who you ask, and I'll preface this by saying that I'm not an expert, so I'll speak to the best of my abilities. From an ATC perspective, Class C provides increased safety, particularly for approach controllers. Class C doesn't have the same entry requirements as a Class B, but it requires pilots to at least be acknowledged by ATC prior to entering the airspace. Class D allows nonparticipating to transit the airspace, thus, no communications with ATC. This can be detrimental for obvious reasons, particularly with commercial carriers involved. Several years ago, IWA had a massive amount of TCAS RAs (most due to the Fighter Combat guys), and several were caused by nonparticipating aircraft. I seem to recall G4 having 60+ RAs in the span of a couple of months, which was troubling, to say the least. Some procedures were changed and things improved significantly, but an airspace redesign is the more definitive long-term solution.

The cons are mostly from the perspective of the private pilot. Some pilots simply don't want to talk to ATC, even for simple VFR flight following. Just about any changes to airspace results in a lawsuit from AOPA, particularly if the change expands controlled airspace. It can result in a very lengthy process that can take years. Nearby residents and sometimes municipalities will often challenge changes in court out of fear of increased noise. All of that ends up being a con from the FAA's perspective, because litigating these challenges is extremely expensive and very time-consuming.

INFINITI329 wrote:

- Who it would it be to get the FAA to go from a FCT to a FAA tower? Would it be the Arizona Congressional Delegation or the FAA themselves seeing that they have the numbers in front of them?

I'm honestly not sure, and I don't think very many people know the answer to that question. Theoretically, the FAA could simply fail to extend SERCO's contract, but the problem is the lack of allocated funding for FAA controllers to staff the facility. It isn't an impossible solution, but as of a few years ago, it seemed that very few people wanted to take on the issue (I suspect nothing has changed). It isn't that the SERCO controllers are substandard, but at some point, it seems to me that it's the FAA's responsibility to staff busier terminal facilities to ensure high standards. I believe that's also what the flying public expects. Ultimately it's a political issue, but whether it requires congressional action or not seems unclear.

77H wrote:

It is mind boggling to me that there are pilots out there that don’t want to talk to ATC. I did my private at IWA through ASU’s program and during the year and a half I was there before transferring there were multiple mid-air collisions of trainer aircraft that saw a lot of young lives lost needlessly when there is a resource available offering another set of eyes to pilots for free.

IWA is unique as far as air traffic profiles as it now has a sizeable airline operation, sees frequent military visitors, business jets headed to the MTX facilities there (Cessna and Embraer I believe) as well as a host of flight schools. Mixing low time student pilots flying small, slow trainers with commercial, private jet and military traffic invites disaster. I haven’t flown in a number of years but every time I did I was getting flight following no matter how sparse air traffic in the area was. I’m all for turning IWA into a Class C and making the sky safer for everyone.

77H

77H wrote:

It is mind boggling to me that there are pilots out there that don’t want to talk to ATC. I did my private at IWA through ASU’s program and during the year and a half I was there before transferring there were multiple mid-air collisions of trainer aircraft that saw a lot of young lives lost needlessly when there is a resource available offering another set of eyes to pilots for free.

IWA is unique as far as air traffic profiles as it now has a sizeable airline operation, sees frequent military visitors, business jets headed to the MTX facilities there (Cessna and Embraer I believe) as well as a host of flight schools. Mixing low time student pilots flying small, slow trainers with commercial, private jet and military traffic invites disaster. I haven’t flown in a number of years but every time I did I was getting flight following no matter how sparse air traffic in the area was. I’m all for turning IWA into a Class C and making the sky safer for everyone.

77H

Lennundus wrote:

*AA MSN-PHX APR 0.0>1.0[0]
AA OKC-PHX APR 1.1>2[0.9]

From this week's OAG changes it looks like AA has extended the season for MSN-PHX and they have gone 2x daily on OKC-PHX which is a fairly recent route that has competition from WN.

• Extending PHX-CVG nonstop service to daily year-round nonstop service
• Adding PHX-BDL, PHX-MEM, and PHX-IAD nonstop service
• Adding PHX-LGB nonstop service if WN can get extra slots at LGB
• Adding nonstop service to Hawaiian destinations
• Adding nonstop international service to CUN, PVR, and SJD from PHX

93Sierra wrote:

There is already Phx lgb on aa

jplatts wrote:

There are still some opportunities for further expansion by WN at PHX, including the following:

• Extending PHX-CVG nonstop service to daily year-round nonstop service
• Adding PHX-BDL, PHX-MEM, and PHX-IAD nonstop service
• Adding PHX-LGB nonstop service if WN can get extra slots at LGB
• Adding nonstop service to Hawaiian destinations
• Adding nonstop international service to CUN, PVR, and SJD from PHX

BA744PHX wrote:

To have a large network carrier that can provide options all over the USA, North & South America, Europe and Asia is better than a carrier that cant even get you out of the continent. I would rather have options to connect all over the world than be restricted.

BA744PHX wrote:

jplatts wrote:

[*]Adding nonstop service to Hawaiian destinations
[

AntonioMartin wrote:

BA744PHX wrote:

jplatts wrote:

[*]Adding nonstop service to Hawaiian destinations
[

Now there's an idea...WN 737s non stop Phoenix-Honolulu, versus Hawaiian's 767's..

MO11 wrote:

AntonioMartin wrote:

BA744PHX wrote:

Now there's an idea...WN 737s non stop Phoenix-Honolulu, versus Hawaiian's 767's..

Those have been gone for a month.

I'll take the 737 to Hawaii any day over the 757 or widebody.

alasizon wrote:

MO11 wrote:

AntonioMartin wrote:

Now there's an idea...WN 737s non stop Phoenix-Honolulu, versus Hawaiian's 767's..

Those have been gone for a month.

I'll take the 737 to Hawaii any day over the 757 or widebody.

Rumor has it, the MAX can't do PHX-Hawaii year-round which is why AA chose to move forward with the NEO for PHX-Hawaii.

jplatts wrote:

There are still some opportunities for further expansion by WN at PHX, including the following:

• Extending PHX-CVG nonstop service to daily year-round nonstop service
• Adding PHX-BDL, PHX-MEM, and PHX-IAD nonstop service
• Adding PHX-LGB nonstop service if WN can get extra slots at LGB
• Adding nonstop service to Hawaiian destinations
• Adding nonstop international service to CUN, PVR, and SJD from PHX

AntonioMartin wrote:

BA744PHX wrote:

jplatts wrote:

[*]Adding nonstop service to Hawaiian destinations
[

Now there's an idea...WN 737s non stop Phoenix-Honolulu, versus Hawaiian's 767's..

MO11 wrote:

AntonioMartin wrote:

BA744PHX wrote:

Now there's an idea...WN 737s non stop Phoenix-Honolulu, versus Hawaiian's 767's..

Those have been gone for a month.

I'll take the 737 to Hawaii any day over the 757 or widebody.

INFINITI329 wrote:

jplatts wrote:

There are still some opportunities for further expansion by WN at PHX, including the following:

• Extending PHX-CVG nonstop service to daily year-round nonstop service
• Adding PHX-BDL, PHX-MEM, and PHX-IAD nonstop service
• Adding PHX-LGB nonstop service if WN can get extra slots at LGB
• Adding nonstop international service to CUN, PVR, and SJD from PHX

- I dont think PHX-BDL will happen before PHX-BOS, PHX-MEM...I don't see that happening....PHX-IAD anything into capital probably could work.
- Almost guaranteed the Mexican destinations will happen, it's a pity that hasn't already.

BA744PHX wrote:

jplatts wrote:

There are still some opportunities for further expansion by WN at PHX, including the following:

• Extending PHX-CVG nonstop service to daily year-round nonstop service
• Adding PHX-BDL, PHX-MEM, and PHX-IAD nonstop service
• Adding PHX-LGB nonstop service if WN can get extra slots at LGB
• Adding nonstop service to Hawaiian destinations
• Adding nonstop international service to CUN, PVR, and SJD from PHX

As much as I like to see expansion in PHX, I believe it's better for AA rather than WN. To have a large network carrier that can provide options all over the USA, North & South America, Europe and Asia is better than a carrier that cant even get you out of the continent. I would rather have options to connect all over the world than be restricted.

jplatts wrote:

INFINITI329 wrote:

jplatts wrote:

There are still some opportunities for further expansion by WN at PHX, including the following:

• Extending PHX-CVG nonstop service to daily year-round nonstop service
• Adding PHX-BDL, PHX-MEM, and PHX-IAD nonstop service
• Adding PHX-LGB nonstop service if WN can get extra slots at LGB
• Adding nonstop international service to CUN, PVR, and SJD from PHX

- I dont think PHX-BDL will happen before PHX-BOS, PHX-MEM...I don't see that happening....PHX-IAD anything into capital probably could work.
- Almost guaranteed the Mexican destinations will happen, it's a pity that hasn't already.

I agree that WN could bring back PHX-BOS nonstop service, and WN is now bigger at BOS than was the case back when WN last operated PHX-BOS nonstop service. In addition, there are also many WN frequent flyers in Greater Phoenix who prefer to fly on WN over AA or B6. WN also already operates PHX-EWR nonstop service that is in competition with B6 PHX-JFK nonstop service.

MEM is in a big enough market to support nonstop service to PHX on both WN and AA since there are actually a few markets smaller than MEM that already have nonstop service to PHX on both AA and WN, including ABQ, BOI, DSM, OMA, RNO, and GEG.

The international arrivals facility at PHX and the international departure gates at PHX are both in the same terminal as the WN domestic gates at PHX. In addition, there is already a bridge on the behind-security side of Terminal 4 at PHX that connects the international gates in Concourse B at PHX to the WN domestic gates in Concourses C and D at PHX, so passengers would be able to connect onto international flights from domestic flights at PHX on WN without having to re-clear security if WN adds nonstop international flights out of PHX.

BDL is one of the top destinations traveled to from PHX that isn't currently served nonstop from either PHX or AZA on any airline, and WN or AA could add PHX-BDL nonstop service.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Which is great if you're an AA/OneWorld FF. For the rest of us, WN offers a nice alternative.

Earlier this month, Phoenix City Council named St. Louis, Missouri-based McCarthy Building Cos. Inc. as general contractor for the addition of the eighth and final concourse at Terminal 4 in Sky Harbor. The project is valued at $310 million.

The new, 130,000-square-foot concourse will include eight new gates for use by Southwest Airlines, Sky Harbor’s second largest carrier, and will include new facilities for both air travelers and airlines.

Some of the other aspects to the project include:

Development of shell spaces for retail and food and beverage concessions
A new bridge to connect the South concourses to the North concourses on the West side to Terminal 4
A new transfer bridge to connect the new concourse to the existing D concourse
Additional ticket counters
New baggage handling systems
An additional baggage claim carousel to support the additional gates and associated travelers.

Construction is expected to begin in May 2019 and is slated to finish during the first quarter of 2022. The architects on the project include SmithGroup and Corgan.

AZLiam wrote:

Contractor chosen to build Southwest Airlines' $310M Sky Harbor addition

Excerpts:

Earlier this month, Phoenix City Council named St. Louis, Missouri-based McCarthy Building Cos. Inc. as general contractor for the addition of the eighth and final concourse at Terminal 4 in Sky Harbor. The project is valued at $310 million.

The new, 130,000-square-foot concourse will include eight new gates for use by Southwest Airlines, Sky Harbor’s second largest carrier, and will include new facilities for both air travelers and airlines.

Some of the other aspects to the project include:

Development of shell spaces for retail and food and beverage concessions
A new bridge to connect the South concourses to the North concourses on the West side to Terminal 4
A new transfer bridge to connect the new concourse to the existing D concourse
Additional ticket counters
New baggage handling systems
An additional baggage claim carousel to support the additional gates and associated travelers.

Construction is expected to begin in May 2019 and is slated to finish during the first quarter of 2022. The architects on the project include SmithGroup and Corgan.

Rendering included in the article: https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2018/12/19/contractor-chosen-to-build-southwest-airlines-310m.html

wn676 wrote:

Funny how the renderings don’t show the connector bridge. Also...no IAF?

wn676 wrote:

AZLiam wrote:

Contractor chosen to build Southwest Airlines' $310M Sky Harbor addition

Excerpts:

Earlier this month, Phoenix City Council named St. Louis, Missouri-based McCarthy Building Cos. Inc. as general contractor for the addition of the eighth and final concourse at Terminal 4 in Sky Harbor. The project is valued at $310 million.

The new, 130,000-square-foot concourse will include eight new gates for use by Southwest Airlines, Sky Harbor’s second largest carrier, and will include new facilities for both air travelers and airlines.

Some of the other aspects to the project include:

Development of shell spaces for retail and food and beverage concessions
A new bridge to connect the South concourses to the North concourses on the West side to Terminal 4
A new transfer bridge to connect the new concourse to the existing D concourse
Additional ticket counters
New baggage handling systems
An additional baggage claim carousel to support the additional gates and associated travelers.

Construction is expected to begin in May 2019 and is slated to finish during the first quarter of 2022. The architects on the project include SmithGroup and Corgan.

Rendering included in the article: https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2018/12/19/contractor-chosen-to-build-southwest-airlines-310m.html

Funny how the renderings don’t show the connector bridge. Also...no IAF?

Vctony wrote:

The connector bridge will go between N2 and S2 (essentially behind the Starbucks).

I believe the thinking surrounding locating the bridge between N2 and S2 is that it would make restaurants / amenities on both the N and S side more easily accessible to travelers, would provide for a common exit for N1/N2/S1/S2 into the main concourse of T4, and allow the current A and D security checkpoints to serve travelers on both sides.

alasizon wrote:

Vctony wrote:

The connector bridge will go between N2 and S2 (essentially behind the Starbucks).

I believe the thinking surrounding locating the bridge between N2 and S2 is that it would make restaurants / amenities on both the N and S side more easily accessible to travelers, would provide for a common exit for N1/N2/S1/S2 into the main concourse of T4, and allow the current A and D security checkpoints to serve travelers on both sides.

Do you have a source for this? I see in the drawings something that could be it but I struggle to see how this would be feasible between it conflicting with the SkyTrain as well as the spiral entrance/exit to the T4 parking garage. On the North side, it would have to meet up right in the middle of the walkway between N1 & N2 otherwise you would lose part of the existing moving walkway. Seems like an idea that is more of a hassle that just keeping the walkway between N1 & S1

The new concourse will include approximately 130,000 square feet configured with apron and passenger levels. The concourse will include the development of shell spaces for retail and food and beverage concessions. There will be a new connector bridge to connect the South concourses to the North concourses on the West side to Terminal 4 that will span Sky Harbor Blvd., as well as a new transfer bridge to connect the new concourse to the existing D concourse. In addition, the project will include terminal processor improvements, expansion of the existing checkpoint D, additional ticket counters, and new baggage handling systems along with an additional a baggage claim carousel to support the additional gates and associated travelers.

kearnet wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Vctony wrote:

The connector bridge will go between N2 and S2 (essentially behind the Starbucks).

I believe the thinking surrounding locating the bridge between N2 and S2 is that it would make restaurants / amenities on both the N and S side more easily accessible to travelers, would provide for a common exit for N1/N2/S1/S2 into the main concourse of T4, and allow the current A and D security checkpoints to serve travelers on both sides.

Do you have a source for this? I see in the drawings something that could be it but I struggle to see how this would be feasible between it conflicting with the SkyTrain as well as the spiral entrance/exit to the T4 parking garage. On the North side, it would have to meet up right in the middle of the walkway between N1 & N2 otherwise you would lose part of the existing moving walkway. Seems like an idea that is more of a hassle that just keeping the walkway between N1 & S1

I'm not sure about being closer to restaurants but a quick study on Google Earth shows why they're not simply doing a straight across connection the way they did on the East Side. If you'll forgive my lack of PS skills, I put together some quick diagrams to show why and where the actual connector is going to go and how it'll fit.

The first problem is there are unmovable support structures on the N/W walkway corner (Green circle) , sure they could tack it on to the west end but that would look odd and blocky.

The second issue is that on the new south side, as the concourse level is one level below the Skytrain platform level (red circle), If the south side connector were to ramp down to the concourse level it'd be way to steep and not provide clearance for the skytrain (yellow circle).

Now as I also illustrated they could overcome this with a mezzanine for the new walkway but that would add expense in materials and having to build vertical access with elevators/escalators between new concourse and said mezzanine level.



So while it's hard to tell from the drawing from the article, what I can see them doing one of 2 things.

1. They're going to use the gap between the parking spiral ramp and that west garage to link the two sides together post security. there is enough room at the concourse level to make it under the skytrain tracks and over the upper roadway.





2. The other thing they could do is similar to was BOS did to join the two sides of their Terminal C which used to have separate security check points for each side into one unified check point and allow post security cross over.




I'm fairly confident it'll be the former and not the latter, but we'll have to wait and see

skyharborshome wrote:

I was all excited to post about a strange visitor to our amazing airport. A Transavia 738 was parked at the gate which I believe would have been a first. On closer inspection, it is wearing “Sun Country Airlines” titles even though nothing else has been repainted. Might be a temp lease since registration is still European. Would research more however I have to get out of here.

skyharborshome wrote:

Had a nice long chat with one of the navigators at the airport and she said they took a tour yesterday of the new Terminal 3 South. According to her they plan to open the second week of January however she thinks it will be a miracle if that happens. There is still a lot of work to do and the cleanup will be massive. However she says the entire terminal is beautiful and that the new sky club is absolutely magnificent. Looks like we are less than a month away!

alasizon wrote:

skyharborshome wrote:

Had a nice long chat with one of the navigators at the airport and she said they took a tour yesterday of the new Terminal 3 South. According to her they plan to open the second week of January however she thinks it will be a miracle if that happens. There is still a lot of work to do and the cleanup will be massive. However she says the entire terminal is beautiful and that the new sky club is absolutely magnificent. Looks like we are less than a month away!

Today was the evac and passenger flow test so I don't see why we couldn't make it by the end of January.

skyharborshome wrote:

alasizon wrote:

skyharborshome wrote:

Had a nice long chat with one of the navigators at the airport and she said they took a tour yesterday of the new Terminal 3 South. According to her they plan to open the second week of January however she thinks it will be a miracle if that happens. There is still a lot of work to do and the cleanup will be massive. However she says the entire terminal is beautiful and that the new sky club is absolutely magnificent. Looks like we are less than a month away!

Today was the evac and passenger flow test so I don't see why we couldn't make it by the end of January.

That is great to hear! Wish it would have been ready for the holidays however most passengers do not even notice.

So I assume one night the aircraft land at north and are towed to south or will they have a cutover time where all aircraft after that time lands and taxis to south and they run both sides until all planes depart?

alasizon wrote:

skyharborshome wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Today was the evac and passenger flow test so I don't see why we couldn't make it by the end of January.

That is great to hear! Wish it would have been ready for the holidays however most passengers do not even notice.

So I assume one night the aircraft land at north and are towed to south or will they have a cutover time where all aircraft after that time lands and taxis to south and they run both sides until all planes depart?

Traditionally, RONs will be towed over and then depart from the new terminal while the red-eyes will depart from the old gates. However, due to the multiple moves required for all the different airlines, my guess is that some will move one day and others on a different day.