Please continue AUS discussion here from the brief 2017 thread.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1375739

Have a happy 2018!

Regarding AUS-AMS, DL has already applied a permanent destination feed (red line on DL Global Destination Map) between the two cities, with CDG highlighted in red as the next theoretical TATL add, maybe 9-12 months after AMS. Beside BAs 3 yr long successful service of full 789s (ie 744 up-gauge starts in March 2018) on the AUS-LHR route, there's the unseen but highly profitable Cargo opportunity on the AUS to AMS/CDG route. ... One would think AMS is here to stay in some facet post March 2018. But we shall see.

We shall. Playing Devil’s Advocate, it is getting down to the wire—BA gave nearly 9 months’ notice of their intention to start service; we’re down to two for the initial AMS flights...

BTW, In addition to the CVG add next spring, PDX, LAS, and SJU will also be added before or around that same time frame. Additionally, rumors exist regarding SJU next spring adding an AMS or CDG service and also an ICN service, with the ICN service tied into the new Korean Air JV. Samsung has a $4 billion chip factory here. It would be quite convenient for AUS High Tech Execs with Asian connects to be able to get to Asia from Central Texas via one stop in SJU, avoiding the bottlenecks (and fortress hub re: SFO) of SFO and LAX. We shall see.

Sorry, did you mean SJC? SJU is a long way for an Asia connection...

reggiejet wrote:

Regarding AUS-AMS, DL has already applied a permanent destination feed (red line on DL Global Destination Map) between the two cities, with CDG highlighted in red as the next theoretical TATL add, maybe 9-12 months after AMS.

No CDG is highlighted in red because it is a hub for Delta, just like how LAX/NRT/SLC/e.t.c are highlighted in red.... If you search OMA, CDG will show up as red too, does that mean DL plans to add OMA-CDG...no.

reggiejet wrote:

BTW, In addition to the CVG add next spring, PDX, LAS, and SJU will also be added before or around that same time frame. Additionally, rumors exist regarding SJU next spring adding an AMS or CDG service and also an ICN service, with the ICN service tied into the new Korean Air JV. Samsung has a $4 billion chip factory here. It would be quite convenient for AUS High Tech Execs with Asian connects to be able to get to Asia from Central Texas via one stop in SJU, avoiding the bottlenecks (and fortress hub re: SFO) of SFO and LAX. We shall see.

PDX and LAS I can believe, SJU and ICN I cannot. Maybe SJC I can believe, but not SJU. MSP and SLC don't even have ICN service, so AUS-ICN is not happening in the next year or two.

Pdx doesn't even see service to Boston and rdu from dl yet they are going to get service to Austin? What.....

Sju no chance
Sjc a little more lively, but another airport where Delta only serves hubs and Las Vegas. And there are already competition from 3 other airlines.

The only one I could see happening out of that is Las Vegas.

Some of these routes proposals are just out there.

reggiejet wrote:

Regarding AUS-AMS, DL has already applied a permanent destination feed (red line on DL Global Destination Map) between the two cities, with CDG highlighted in red as the next theoretical TATL add, maybe 9-12 months after AMS. Beside BAs 3 yr long successful service of full 789s (ie 744 up-gauge starts in March 2018) on the AUS-LHR route, there's the unseen but highly profitable Cargo opportunity on the AUS to AMS/CDG route. DASH is an award winning cargo product that DL hangs their proverbial 'we have service that our competitors can't match' hat on and that customers definitely like. In initial new AMS offerings, even aircraft leaving with 80% pax capacity will make good money via cargo carried as a new niche transport market from the Silicon Valley South (Samsung, Dell, Apple, 3M, AMD, Freescale/Motorola, IBM, etc) without the vendor having to move product through IAH or DFW first. Convenient. When AMS was announced as a 'temporary' SXSW TATL foray during this past summer, the credible rumor was that DL wanted to keep the route on a more frequent basis according to J class opportunities already well exploited by BA. GSE Equipment has been shipped here to support wide body operations and the mechanic/TechOps surge and wherehouse build is imminent from what we hear. One would think AMS is here to stay in some facet post March 2018. But we shall see.

Right now, Delta has loaded for sale just a handful of opportunistically-scheduled AUS-AMS flights for SXSW. That's it. Maybe Delta has grander visions for AUS-Europe, but I personally question whether the market could support more than - at most - another few weekly flights on top of the BA's highly successful LHR nonstop (soaking up premium demand) and Condor/Norwegian (catering to leisure demand). Nonstop AUS-Europe - on a more than weekly-for-SXSW basis - is going to be really tough for Delta to pry into given the aforementioned lead with local corporate sales that AA (and United, and their JV partners) enjoy.

reggiejet wrote:

BTW, In addition to the CVG add next spring, PDX, LAS, and SJU will also be added before or around that same time frame. Additionally, rumors exist regarding SJU next spring adding an AMS or CDG service and also an ICN service, with the ICN service tied into the new Korean Air JV. Samsung has a $4 billion chip factory here. It would be quite convenient for AUS High Tech Execs with Asian connects to be able to get to Asia from Central Texas via one stop in SJU, avoiding the bottlenecks (and fortress hub re: SFO) of SFO and LAX.

LAS doesn't seem hard to believe given that, of course, it isn't hard to fill a plane to LAS from just about anywhere in the U.S. (at least for the right price). I do question the yields, though.

PDX I suppose has some local tech traffic, but again I question whether such a purely point-to-point market could profitably support a Delta flight given the existing presence of competitors (Alaska/Southwest) with lower costs and a stronger presence at each end of this route than Delta.

As for SJU, I, too, will assume SJC was meant since AUS-SJU is entirely implausible.

And regarding ICN, I don't question for a second that their is a healthy local market given Samsung and other tech traffic, but I remain skeptical of the ability of AUS to support a nonstop Asia flight at this point.

AMA, LBB, MAF, and CRP are all served by AA, UA, and WN but not by DL. In addition, there are many smaller Texas markets are not served by DL or WN, including ABI, BPT, CLL, BRO, LRD, GGG, MFE, TYR, ACT, and SPS. On the other hand, DL does have seasonal nonstop service to HRL from its MSP hub, but no nonstop service to any of its other hubs from HRL.

The lack of DL service to most of the smaller Texas markets is a huge hole for DL since DL serves destinations in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, the Mountain West, the Upper Midwest, and the Southeast that AA, UA, and WN do not serve, since there is lack of connectivity between the smaller Texas markets not served by DL and the domestic destinations served by DL but not by AA, UA, or WN, since there are customers who are loyal to DL and who prefer to fly on DL over AA or UA, since DL and its SkyTeam alliance partners have nonstop service to the US from a few international destinations that do not have nonstop service to the US on AA, AA's oneworld partners, UA, or UA's Star Alliance partners, and since DL has corporate contracts in hub cities where AA or UA do not have hubs (including ATL, CVG, DTW, MSP, and SLC).

Delta Connection could add nonstop service to some of the smaller Texas markets from AUS in order to fill in this huge hole in the DL network, and the other benefits of DL adding nonstop service from AUS to smaller Texas markets include the following:

• Easier access to Greater Austin from the smaller Texas markets that do not currently have any nonstop service to AUS
• Provides customers in the smaller Texas markets with an additional option for travel to DL's hub and focus cities and vice versa
• Improved DL loyalty in the DL hub and focus city markets where AA and UA do not have hubs, including ATL, BOS, CVG, DTW, MSP, SLC, SEA, and RDU
• Improved connectivity to DL destinations in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, the Mountain West, the Upper Midwest, and the Southeast from the smaller Texas markets
• Improved competition on air travel between the smaller Texas markets and many of DL's domestic destinations outside of Texas
• Access to international connections on DL, DL's SkyTeam alliance partners, and DL's other codeshare partners
• Gives Aeromexico the ability to connect its customers to the smaller Texas markets through AUS since AM already serves MEX nonstop from AUS and since AM can codeshare with DL on any future DL routes between AUS and smaller Texas markets

commavia wrote:

reggiejet wrote:

Regarding AUS-AMS, DL has already applied a permanent destination feed (red line on DL Global Destination Map) between the two cities, with CDG highlighted in red as the next theoretical TATL add, maybe 9-12 months after AMS. Beside BAs 3 yr long successful service of full 789s (ie 744 up-gauge starts in March 2018) on the AUS-LHR route, there's the unseen but highly profitable Cargo opportunity on the AUS to AMS/CDG route. DASH is an award winning cargo product that DL hangs their proverbial 'we have service that our competitors can't match' hat on and that customers definitely like. In initial new AMS offerings, even aircraft leaving with 80% pax capacity will make good money via cargo carried as a new niche transport market from the Silicon Valley South (Samsung, Dell, Apple, 3M, AMD, Freescale/Motorola, IBM, etc) without the vendor having to move product through IAH or DFW first. Convenient. When AMS was announced as a 'temporary' SXSW TATL foray during this past summer, the credible rumor was that DL wanted to keep the route on a more frequent basis according to J class opportunities already well exploited by BA. GSE Equipment has been shipped here to support wide body operations and the mechanic/TechOps surge and wherehouse build is imminent from what we hear. One would think AMS is here to stay in some facet post March 2018. But we shall see.

Right now, Delta has loaded for sale just a handful of opportunistically-scheduled AUS-AMS flights for SXSW. That's it. Maybe Delta has grander visions for AUS-Europe, but I personally question whether the market could support more than - at most - another few weekly flights on top of the BA's highly successful LHR nonstop (soaking up premium demand) and Condor/Norwegian (catering to leisure demand). Nonstop AUS-Europe - on a more than weekly-for-SXSW basis - is going to be really tough for Delta to pry into given the aforementioned lead with local corporate sales that AA (and United, and their JV partners) enjoy.

reggiejet wrote:

BTW, In addition to the CVG add next spring, PDX, LAS, and SJU will also be added before or around that same time frame. Additionally, rumors exist regarding SJU next spring adding an AMS or CDG service and also an ICN service, with the ICN service tied into the new Korean Air JV. Samsung has a $4 billion chip factory here. It would be quite convenient for AUS High Tech Execs with Asian connects to be able to get to Asia from Central Texas via one stop in SJU, avoiding the bottlenecks (and fortress hub re: SFO) of SFO and LAX.

LAS doesn't seem hard to believe given that, of course, it isn't hard to fill a plane to LAS from just about anywhere in the U.S. (at least for the right price). I do question the yields, though.

PDX I suppose has some local tech traffic, but again I question whether such a purely point-to-point market could profitably support a Delta flight given the existing presence of competitors (Alaska/Southwest) with lower costs and a stronger presence at each end of this route than Delta.

As for SJU, I, too, will assume SJC was meant since AUS-SJU is entirely implausible.

And regarding ICN, I don't question for a second that their is a healthy local market given Samsung and other tech traffic, but I remain skeptical of the ability of AUS to support a nonstop Asia flight at this point.

Exactly, Aa/ba service to lhr has all the advantages: first mover, larger ff base with aa, larger o&d. I can't imagine demand to Amsterdam is anywhere close to London. If the Austin to Europe traffic grows, it could certainly support a second legacy but ba could also add a second daily. Delta to ams will always be lower yielding.

And I truly wonder how many new hubs or focus cities delta is willing to start where they are battling incumbents with 25% lower cost and they can't get revenue premium on all the routes to non delta hubs.

At least in the case of Seattle and Boston, they are facing off against smaller incumbents. In Austin, they are going up against wn and aa.

jplatts wrote:

AMA, LBB, MAF, and CRP are all served by AA, UA, and WN but not by DL. In addition, there are many smaller Texas markets are not served by DL or WN, including ABI, BPT, CLL, BRO, LRD, GGG, MFE, TYR, ACT, and SPS. On the other hand, DL does have seasonal nonstop service to HRL from its MSP hub, but no nonstop service to any of its other hubs from HRL.

The lack of DL service to most of the smaller Texas markets is a huge hole for DL since DL serves destinations in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, the Mountain West, the Upper Midwest, and the Southeast that AA, UA, and WN do not serve, since there is lack of connectivity between the smaller Texas markets not served by DL and the domestic destinations served by DL but not by AA, UA, or WN, since there are customers who are loyal to DL and who prefer to fly on DL over AA or UA, since DL and its SkyTeam alliance partners have nonstop service to the US from a few international destinations that do not have nonstop service to the US on AA, AA's oneworld partners, UA, or UA's Star Alliance partners, and since DL has corporate contracts in hub cities where AA or UA do not have hubs (including ATL, CVG, DTW, MSP, and SLC).

Delta Connection could add nonstop service to some of the smaller Texas markets from AUS in order to fill in this huge hole in the DL network, and the other benefits of DL adding nonstop service from AUS to smaller Texas markets include the following:

• Easier access to Greater Austin from the smaller Texas markets that do not currently have any nonstop service to AUS
• Provides customers in the smaller Texas markets with an additional option for travel to DL's hub and focus cities and vice versa
• Improved DL loyalty in the DL hub and focus city markets where AA and UA do not have hubs, including ATL, BOS, CVG, DTW, MSP, SLC, SEA, and RDU
• Improved connectivity to DL destinations in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, the Mountain West, the Upper Midwest, and the Southeast from the smaller Texas markets
• Improved competition on air travel between the smaller Texas markets and many of DL's domestic destinations outside of Texas
• Access to international connections on DL, DL's SkyTeam alliance partners, and DL's other codeshare partners
• Gives Aeromexico the ability to connect its customers to the smaller Texas markets through AUS since AM already serves MEX nonstop from AUS and since AM can codeshare with DL on any future DL routes between AUS and smaller Texas markets

I admire your optimism, but again with what gates? I don't think many here know just how gate restrained AUS is, even with the addition of 9 gates. What you are requiring would require a finger concourse ( in the master plan) to be built and I am not sure AUS would get behind that for just one customer. The airport board has stated they do not see AUS being a hub airport.

It would be easier for DL set back up in DFW terminal E. Spirit,which doesn't have a marketing backbone would shrink in an instant giving DL plenty of gates to expand from a focus city to hub.

tphuang wrote:

Exactly, Aa/ba service to lhr has all the advantages: first mover, larger ff base with aa, larger o&d. I can't imagine demand to Amsterdam is anywhere close to London.

While LHR has many advantages indeed, there’s one it definitely doesn’t have: AMS is better and more conveniently connected to almost any place in Europe, even the UK.

tphuang wrote:

And I truly wonder how many new hubs or focus cities delta is willing to start where they are battling incumbents with 25% lower cost and they can't get revenue premium on all the routes to non delta hubs.

At least in the case of Seattle and Boston, they are facing off against smaller incumbents. In Austin, they are going up against wn and aa.

Agreed. I still find it remarkable how aggressive Delta has been, and continues to be, in recent years at dedicating capacity and resources to picking fights in non-hub markets that either directly or indirectly overfly its powerful, successful connecting hubs. SEA I get, despite the Alaska dominance, given the strategic imperative to replace NRT for Asia connections. But as said, BOS and RDU are both markets with intense competition from larger, stronger and/or lower-cost competitors, and both are very close to, and highly overlap with, major Delta hubs. As said previously, AUS at least overlaps minimally with any existing Delta hub - since Delta has a fairly minimal presence in the south-central U.S. - but yes, AUS is definitely a market where Delta will have to work very hard to build a presence against entrenched rivals.

william wrote:

It would be easier for DL set back up in DFW terminal E. Spirit,which doesn't have a marketing backbone would shrink in an instant giving DL plenty of gates to expand from a focus city to hub.

Maybe in terms of gates, but at this point, the ship has sailed for Delta to come back into DFW and set up any sort of meaningful hub. The North Texas market is now dominated by AA, and to a lesser extent Southwest, and there isn't sufficient room - physically or metaphorically - for Delta.

Jetty wrote:

While LHR has many advantages indeed, there’s one it definitely doesn’t have: AMS is better and more conveniently connected to almost any place in Europe, even the UK.

That isn't much of an advantage for AMS since LHR does offer ample connectivity to just about every market that counts. Does AMS have more flights to more places, arguably with a more convenient connecting experience, than LHR? Yeah, sure. But O&D to Europe from AUS, like almost all U.S. cities, is very much a Pareto situation - the demand is very highly concentrated in a relatively smaller set of markets. And LHR provides "good enough" coverage of all of those markets, not to mention all of the countless connecting options also available to AUS-Europe travelers over multiple other major connecting in the U.S. and Canada.

william wrote:

jplatts wrote:

AMA, LBB, MAF, and CRP are all served by AA, UA, and WN but not by DL. In addition, there are many smaller Texas markets are not served by DL or WN, including ABI, BPT, CLL, BRO, LRD, GGG, MFE, TYR, ACT, and SPS. On the other hand, DL does have seasonal nonstop service to HRL from its MSP hub, but no nonstop service to any of its other hubs from HRL.

The lack of DL service to most of the smaller Texas markets is a huge hole for DL since DL serves destinations in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, the Mountain West, the Upper Midwest, and the Southeast that AA, UA, and WN do not serve, since there is lack of connectivity between the smaller Texas markets not served by DL and the domestic destinations served by DL but not by AA, UA, or WN, since there are customers who arep loyal to DL and who prefer to fly on DL over AA or UA, since DL and its SkyTeam alliance partners have nonstop service to the US from a few international destinations that do not have nonstop service to the US on AA, AA's oneworld partners, UA, or UA's Star Alliance partners, and since DL has corporate contracts in hub cities where AA or UA do not have hubs (including ATL, CVG, DTW, MSP, and SLC).

Delta Connection could add nonstop service to some of the smaller Texas markets from AUS in order to fill in this huge hole in the DL network, and the other benefits of DL adding nonstop service from AUS to smaller Texas markets include the following:

• Easier access to Greater Austin from the smaller Texas markets that do not currently have any nonstop service to AUS
• Provides customers in the smaller Texas markets with an additional option for travel to DL's hub and focus cities and vice versa
• Improved DL loyalty in the DL hub and focus city markets where AA and UA do not have hubs, including ATL, BOS, CVG, DTW, MSP, SLC, SEA, and RDU
• Improved connectivity to DL destinations in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, the Mountain West, the Upper Midwest, and the Southeast from the smaller Texas markets
• Improved competition on air travel between the smaller Texas markets and many of DL's domestic destinations outside of Texas
• Access to international connections on DL, DL's SkyTeam alliance partners, and DL's other codeshare partners
• Gives Aeromexico the ability to connect its customers to the smaller Texas markets through AUS since AM already serves MEX nonstop from AUS and since AM can codeshare with DL on any future DL routes between AUS and smaller Texas markets

I admire your optimism, but again with what gates? I don't think many here know just how gate restrained AUS is, even with the addition of 9 gates. What you are requiring would require a finger concourse ( in the master plan) to be built and I am not sure AUS would get behind that for just one customer. The airport board has stated they do not see AUS being a hub airport.

It would be easier for DL set back up in DFW terminal E. Spirit,which doesn't have a marketing backbone would shrink in an instant giving DL plenty of gates to expand from a focus city to hub.

Agreed. I’m not sure there is a market for smaller Texas to Austin that a) WN doesn’t have covered and B) DL didn’t give up on when they closed their hub in DFW. I also don’t necessarily see the wisdom in trying to set up AUS as a connecting point to the rest of the country when DFW and IAH are already set up for that. You need a huge cadre of connecting points to make San Angelo and Abilene viable on a multiple-times-daily basis, and as William says, AUS gate slots are too valuable for that.

As for Mexico, AUS was one of the last Texas markets that AM set up in— they’ve been in SAT, DFW, IAH for years, as well as the cities on the border through their counterparts on the other side - and all of those are stronger Texas to Mexico markets. AM is currently growing the market low and slow, which is what they should be doing in order to keep the route viable.

commavia wrote:

Jetty wrote:

While LHR has many advantages indeed, there’s one it definitely doesn’t have: AMS is better and more conveniently connected to almost any place in Europe, even the UK.

Okay, but that's not much of an advantage for AMS since LHR does offer ample connectivity to just about every market that counts. Does AMS have more flights to more places, arguably with a more convenient connecting experience, than LHR? Yeah, sure. But O&D to Europe from AUS, like almost all U.S. cities, is very much a Pareto situation - the demand is very highly concentrated in a relatively smaller set of markets. And LHR provides "good enough" coverage of all of those markets, not to mention all of the countless connecting options also available to AUS-Europe travelers over multiple other major connecting in the U.S. and Canada.

I’ve said before and will again that I worry that AUS-Europe demand isn’t strong enough for two full fare competitors and that the addition of a second route could kill both. I’m still not 100% sure that BA’s summer upgauge is due to demand on the AUS end as it is due to the need for the 789 on other routes while waiting for new frames to be delivered. If you look at the stats, BA’s load factor is actually down slightly this year compared to last.

khowaga wrote:

william wrote:

jplatts wrote:

AMA, LBB, MAF, and CRP are all served by AA, UA, and WN but not by DL. In addition, there are many smaller Texas markets are not served by DL or WN, including ABI, BPT, CLL, BRO, LRD, GGG, MFE, TYR, ACT, and SPS. On the other hand, DL does have seasonal nonstop service to HRL from its MSP hub, but no nonstop service to any of its other hubs from HRL.

The lack of DL service to most of the smaller Texas markets is a huge hole for DL since DL serves destinations in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, the Mountain West, the Upper Midwest, and the Southeast that AA, UA, and WN do not serve, since there is lack of connectivity between the smaller Texas markets not served by DL and the domestic destinations served by DL but not by AA, UA, or WN, since there are customers who arep loyal to DL and who prefer to fly on DL over AA or UA, since DL and its SkyTeam alliance partners have nonstop service to the US from a few international destinations that do not have nonstop service to the US on AA, AA's oneworld partners, UA, or UA's Star Alliance partners, and since DL has corporate contracts in hub cities where AA or UA do not have hubs (including ATL, CVG, DTW, MSP, and SLC).

Delta Connection could add nonstop service to some of the smaller Texas markets from AUS in order to fill in this huge hole in the DL network, and the other benefits of DL adding nonstop service from AUS to smaller Texas markets include the following:

• Easier access to Greater Austin from the smaller Texas markets that do not currently have any nonstop service to AUS
• Provides customers in the smaller Texas markets with an additional option for travel to DL's hub and focus cities and vice versa
• Improved DL loyalty in the DL hub and focus city markets where AA and UA do not have hubs, including ATL, BOS, CVG, DTW, MSP, SLC, SEA, and RDU
• Improved connectivity to DL destinations in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, the Mountain West, the Upper Midwest, and the Southeast from the smaller Texas markets
• Improved competition on air travel between the smaller Texas markets and many of DL's domestic destinations outside of Texas
• Access to international connections on DL, DL's SkyTeam alliance partners, and DL's other codeshare partners
• Gives Aeromexico the ability to connect its customers to the smaller Texas markets through AUS since AM already serves MEX nonstop from AUS and since AM can codeshare with DL on any future DL routes between AUS and smaller Texas markets

I admire your optimism, but again with what gates? I don't think many here know just how gate restrained AUS is, even with the addition of 9 gates. What you are requiring would require a finger concourse ( in the master plan) to be built and I am not sure AUS would get behind that for just one customer. The airport board has stated they do not see AUS being a hub airport.

It would be easier for DL set back up in DFW terminal E. Spirit,which doesn't have a marketing backbone would shrink in an instant giving DL plenty of gates to expand from a focus city to hub.

Agreed. I’m not sure there is a market for smaller Texas to Austin that a) WN doesn’t have covered and B) DL didn’t give up on when they closed their hub in DFW. I also don’t necessarily see the wisdom in trying to set up AUS as a connecting point to the rest of the country when DFW and IAH are already set up for that. You need a huge cadre of connecting points to make San Angelo and Abilene viable on a multiple-times-daily basis, and as William says, AUS gate slots are too valuable for that.

As for Mexico, AUS was one of the last Texas markets that AM set up in— they’ve been in SAT, DFW, IAH for years, as well as the cities on the border through their counterparts on the other side - and all of those are stronger Texas to Mexico markets. AM is currently growing the market low and slow, which is what they should be doing in order to keep the route viable.

I agree that DL could expand out of Terminal E at DFW, even if it does not involve a full hub operation at DFW, by bringing back nonstop service from DFW to at least BOS, SEA, RDU, and the smaller Texas destinations that were served nonstop by DL out of DFW prior to the DFW dehubbing. In addition, DL's partners KE and WS do serve DFW, and DL would be able to connect passengers onto the KE DFW-ICN nonstop and the WS DFW-YYC nonstop if DL adds nonstop service to the smaller Texas destinations from DFW.

DL has no codeshare or interline agreement with AA or WN, and DL also does not sell any flights to Texas destinations that DL doesn't serve on its delta.com website. DL still has a huge hole with lack of DL service to most of the smaller Texas markets, and DL does need to address this hole, even without a full hub operation at a major airport in Texas. The lack of connectivity to the smaller Texas destinations not served by DL to the destinations in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, the Mountain West, the Upper Midwest, and the Southeast that are served by DL but not by AA, UA, or WN needs to be addressed. In addition, the Lubbock area is over a 5 hour drive to the closest commercial airports to the Lubbock area that are served by DL (DFW, DAL, OKC, ABQ, ELP), the Amarillo area is almost a 4 hour drive to OKC, the closest commercial airport to the Amarillo area that is served by DL, the Midland/Odessa area is a 4 hour drive to ELP, the closest commercial airport to the Permian Basin that is served by DL, and the Rio Grande Valley is a 3 1/2 to 4 hour drive to SAT, the closest commercial airport to the Rio Grande Valley that has year-round nonstop service on DL.

jplatts wrote:

The lack of connectivity to the smaller Texas destinations not served by DL to the destinations in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, the Mountain West, the Upper Midwest, and the Southeast that are served by DL but not by AA, UA, or WN needs to be addressed.

My question here is why this needs to be addressed. DL isn't exactly a small carrier, and one would imagine that if they saw this as a serious flaw in their network that they would have tried service from one of their existing hubs. That they're pulling out of GRK seems to suggest secondary Texas markets just aren't that important to them.

jplatts wrote:

In addition, the Lubbock area is over a 5 hour drive to the closest commercial airports to the Lubbock area that are served by DL (DFW, DAL, OKC, ABQ, ELP), the Amarillo area is almost a 4 hour drive to OKC, the closest commercial airport to the Amarillo area that is served by DL, the Midland/Odessa area is a 4 hour drive to ELP, the closest commercial airport to the Permian Basin that is served by DL, and the Rio Grande Valley is a 3 1/2 to 4 hour drive to SAT, the closest commercial airport to the Rio Grande Valley that has year-round nonstop service on DL.

Again - playing ball here - if DL were inclined to start service to these places, it would make more sense to do so from SLC or ATL than it would to do so from AUS (SLC would make more sense for LBB and AMA). There's a bigger pool of potential passengers there - the PDEW between AUS and MAF isn't even enough to support a WN flight these days.

I mean, anything is possible - but since this is the Austin thread, it just doesn't seem to me that it's likely that DL is going to utilize its hard-fought-and-won real estate at AUS to start a mini-Texas hub operation.

jplatts wrote:

khowaga wrote:

william wrote:

I admire your optimism, but again with what gates? I don't think many here know just how gate restrained AUS is, even with the addition of 9 gates. What you are requiring would require a finger concourse ( in the master plan) to be built and I am not sure AUS would get behind that for just one customer. The airport board has stated they do not see AUS being a hub airport.

It would be easier for DL set back up in DFW terminal E. Spirit,which doesn't have a marketing backbone would shrink in an instant giving DL plenty of gates to expand from a focus city to hub.

Agreed. I’m not sure there is a market for smaller Texas to Austin that a) WN doesn’t have covered and B) DL didn’t give up on when they closed their hub in DFW. I also don’t necessarily see the wisdom in trying to set up AUS as a connecting point to the rest of the country when DFW and IAH are already set up for that. You need a huge cadre of connecting points to make San Angelo and Abilene viable on a multiple-times-daily basis, and as William says, AUS gate slots are too valuable for that.

As for Mexico, AUS was one of the last Texas markets that AM set up in— they’ve been in SAT, DFW, IAH for years, as well as the cities on the border through their counterparts on the other side - and all of those are stronger Texas to Mexico markets. AM is currently growing the market low and slow, which is what they should be doing in order to keep the route viable.

I agree that DL could expand out of Terminal E at DFW, even if it does not involve a full hub operation at DFW, by bringing back nonstop service from DFW to at least BOS, SEA, RDU, and the smaller Texas destinations that were served nonstop by DL out of DFW prior to the DFW dehubbing. In addition, DL's partners KE and WS do serve DFW, and DL would be able to connect passengers onto the KE DFW-ICN nonstop and the WS DFW-YYC nonstop if DL adds nonstop service to the smaller Texas destinations from DFW.

DL has no codeshare or interline agreement with AA or WN, and DL also does not sell any flights to Texas destinations that DL doesn't serve on its delta.com website. DL still has a huge hole with lack of DL service to most of the smaller Texas markets, and DL does need to address this hole, even without a full hub operation at a major airport in Texas. The lack of connectivity to the smaller Texas destinations not served by DL to the destinations in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, the Mountain West, the Upper Midwest, and the Southeast that are served by DL but not by AA, UA, or WN needs to be addressed. In addition, the Lubbock area is over a 5 hour drive to the closest commercial airports to the Lubbock area that are served by DL (DFW, DAL, OKC, ABQ, ELP), the Amarillo area is almost a 4 hour drive to OKC, the closest commercial airport to the Amarillo area that is served by DL, the Midland/Odessa area is a 4 hour drive to ELP, the closest commercial airport to the Permian Basin that is served by DL, and the Rio Grande Valley is a 3 1/2 to 4 hour drive to SAT, the closest commercial airport to the Rio Grande Valley that has year-round nonstop service on DL.

To fill that hole then you want DL"s regional to connect Texas's smaller cities to SLC, Deltta's DFW replacement hub for the west.

By the way, DL just pulled out of GRK that served ATL. So DL is pulling out of smaller Texas markets.

Austin is indeed a fast growing metropolis, and your idea of Delta hub has some merit. I would love for it to happen. But the reality is there are not enough gates at AUS and the major business markets from Austin are already served by AA,SWA and UA.

The smaller cities in Texas are very well by AA and larger communities by SWA and UA.

Let me give my quick two cents about Delta at AUS. Here is what I see coming true in the near future: A319/20/21 line maintenance, the arrival of equipment to handle wide body aircraft and the arrival of permanent mechanics, possibility of a trans Atlantic flight around 2019, increased flights and larger aircraft on current routes (RDU upgrade and CVG upgrade).

What I don't see happening in the near future is a Delta hub and focus city, while I do think that Delta will make AUS an RDU clone, they have a whole lot more competition in AUS so things will be slower.

In terms of Delta JV, I do see Aeromexico expanding at AUS along with the departure of Volaris, ERJ service to GDL and MTY in 2018 or 2019. I don't see Korean Air coming, but if they do I would guess at or after 2019 when the new gates are online. If they do come the route will most likely be seasonal at first a few days a week.

Here is a question that I have, was the CVG-AUS addition based solely on Allegiant and Frontier doing so, or did Delta have plans to add this service the entire time. I honestly thought Delta was done expanding at CVG.

Keep in mind before you comment that this is all my opinion and should be taken with a grain of salt. I cannot see the future and don't work high up in Delta.

masonh2479 wrote:

Here is a question that I have, was the CVG-AUS addition based solely on Allegiant and Frontier doing so, or did Delta have plans to add this service the entire time. I honestly thought Delta was done expanding at CVG.

DL has been flat or expanding in Cincinnati since the end of 2015. The last big cut came in early 2015 and since then DL has maintained the majority of its schedule. Frontier and Allegiant have driven down fares on all carriers at CVG including Delta, which has sparked massive O&D growth (CVG pax is up 16% YOY). I think this add has been in the works for a while and it seems that DL wants to maintain its #1 position in Cincinnati. Along with adding CVG-AUS, DL increased seats at CVG for its 2018 schedule by ~12% YOY. I don't believe that DL is done adding flights from CVG and I think there is a chance DL could add some more routes back for the summer.

khowaga wrote:

Regarding AUS-AMS, DL has already applied a permanent destination feed (red line on DL Global Destination Map) between the two cities, with CDG highlighted in red as the next theoretical TATL add, maybe 9-12 months after AMS. Beside BAs 3 yr long successful service of full 789s (ie 744 up-gauge starts in March 2018) on the AUS-LHR route, there's the unseen but highly profitable Cargo opportunity on the AUS to AMS/CDG route. ... One would think AMS is here to stay in some facet post March 2018. But we shall see.

We shall. Playing Devil’s Advocate, it is getting down to the wire—BA gave nearly 9 months’ notice of their intention to start service; we’re down to two for the initial AMS flights...

BTW, In addition to the CVG add next spring, PDX, LAS, and SJU will also be added before or around that same time frame. Additionally, rumors exist regarding SJU next spring adding an AMS or CDG service and also an ICN service, with the ICN service tied into the new Korean Air JV. Samsung has a $4 billion chip factory here. It would be quite convenient for AUS High Tech Execs with Asian connects to be able to get to Asia from Central Texas via one stop in SJU, avoiding the bottlenecks (and fortress hub re: SFO) of SFO and LAX. We shall see.

Sorry, did you mean SJC? SJU is a long way for an Asia connection...

Geesuz. My bad. Yes SJC NOT SJU.

cvgComair wrote:

masonh2479 wrote:

Here is a question that I have, was the CVG-AUS addition based solely on Allegiant and Frontier doing so, or did Delta have plans to add this service the entire time. I honestly thought Delta was done expanding at CVG.

DL has been flat or expanding in Cincinnati since the end of 2015. The last big cut came in early 2015 and since then DL has maintained the majority of its schedule. Frontier and Allegiant have driven down fares on all carriers at CVG including Delta, which has sparked massive O&D growth (CVG pax is up 16% YOY). I think this add has been in the works for a while and it seems that DL wants to maintain its #1 position in Cincinnati. Along with adding CVG-AUS, DL increased seats at CVG for its 2018 schedule by ~12% YOY. I don't believe that DL is done adding flights from CVG and I think there is a chance DL could add some more routes back for the summer.

It's great to see CVG bouncing back, but I do hope Delta doesn't get a monopoly of the market again and drive prices up. The main flight myself and many others would like from CVG is to MSY on Delta, hopefully that will come this year too! CVG certainly fared far better than MEM did.

Bah...DL should just shell out a bunch of $$ to build up San Marcos airport to commercial standards, and invade that airport as a Texas mega-hub that can serve BOTH AUS and SAT.

That would make as much sense as them setting up an intra-TX hub at AUS.

BA's load factor may be slightly down YOY, but their fares surely have not lessened. In most cases, J fares are 2-3X a 1-stop through DFW. The other unknown is cargo. Given where that aircraft is, there's no way to see it from the terminal, only a ramp rat would likely know how much cargo goes in the hold. I would imagine it is quite full.

tcfc424 wrote:

BA's load factor may be slightly down YOY, but their fares surely have not lessened. In most cases, J fares are 2-3X a 1-stop through DFW. The other unknown is cargo. Given where that aircraft is, there's no way to see it from the terminal, only a ramp rat would likely know how much cargo goes in the hold. I would imagine it is quite full.

Cargo is key — it’s the reason the flight was profitable from day 1. I would not be surprised at all to find out that cargo, rather than passenger, demand was what pushed the decision to use the 744 this summer.

I would have to imagine if you can afford J in the first place, you’re not all that concerned with price...

It's been posted in previous threads that cargo is >85% on AUS-LHR.

TWA772LR wrote:

I believe that we'll see AUS-Tokyo over Seoul. Yeah Samsung is there, but Tokyo is like London, LA, and NYC on that it has near-limitless demand to places all over the globe.

I'll take what I can get when it comes to trans Atlantic or trans Pacific. Tokyo or Seoul would be fantastic!

January-November Numbers have been posted for AUS, 12.6million passengers so far!

http://www.austintexas.gov/news/november-2017-passenger-cargo-traffic-austin-bergstrom

Southwest should add about an 11 am departure and 2:30 arrival AUS-EWR

masonh2479 wrote:

January-November Numbers have been posted for AUS, 12.6million passengers so far!

http://www.austintexas.gov/news/november-2017-passenger-cargo-traffic-austin-bergstrom

http://www.mystatesman.com/business/dis ... sHthhydjJ/

ViaAir plans to expand its presence in Austin, with some of its flight crews and maintenance operations eventually being based at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, Matthew Macri, ViaAir’s vice president of operations, said in the airline’s announcement.

“Austin is an amazing, fast-growing city,” Macri said. “We are thrilled to bring the convenience of direct flights to the markets of Tucson and Oklahoma City as the start of expanded service in the region. We will roll out additional cities throughout (2018) as we hope to be known as Austin’s hometown airline.

Wonder what cities VC plans to add? I would assume it would be mid sized cities not currently served nonstop? Here are just some wild guesses: COS, ICT, LIT, TUL,

Just to clarify, the city does not choose which carriers use the South Terminal. It's privately operated so airlines can choose on their own whether or not to move there. Frontier Airlines was initially planning to move, but it did not in the end.

While probably not possible, the best idea for AUS's main terminal is to use a system similar to European airports, where airline's can use any check-in counters and gates so that all airline's can maximize their schedules at the airport. The South Terminal is currently doing that. At the main terminal, Alaska Airlines, British Airways, Virgin America, and Air Canada utilize the shared use system. There are currently 5 shared use gates (2, 3, 3A, 13, 25) which all airline's could technically utilize however if all gates were shared use, airlines could easily squeeze in a few more flights into their daily schedules.

As for the East Terminal expansion, I believe there will be four or six gates capable of handling international flights, and so those will all be shared use gates as well.

And about British Airways' upgrade to the 744 in March, it is most likely due to Norwegian entering the market. With more seats available, BA can lower the cost of its tickets and still make as much money as it would have before. I believe there will be a few more premium seats as well on the aircraft, so that is more guaranteed profit for the carrier.

I often wonder what is in Austin that traffic is increasing so fast. Are they drawing passengers from San Antonio?

dc10lover wrote:

I often wonder what is in Austin that traffic is increasing so fast. Are they drawing passengers from San Antonio?

Population growth, tech growth, e.t.c. The city grew +19.93% from 2010-2016....

PHOTOSMK wrote:

Just to clarify, the city does not choose which carriers use the South Terminal. It's privately operated so airlines can choose on their own whether or not to move there. Frontier Airlines was initially planning to move, but it did not in the end.

It’s still rumored that they may yet do so.

PHOTOSMK wrote:

While probably not possible, the best idea for AUS's main terminal is to use a system similar to European airports, where airline's can use any check-in counters and gates so that all airline's can maximize their schedules at the airport. The South Terminal is currently doing that. At the main terminal, Alaska Airlines, British Airways, Virgin America, and Air Canada utilize the shared use system. There are currently 5 shared use gates (2, 3, 3A, 13, 25) which all airline's could technically utilize however if all gates were shared use, airlines could easily squeeze in a few more flights into their daily schedules.

Hear, hear. Even though this is supposed to be the case, I’ve been in the terminal at 6 am waiting in a hellish line at the AA counter where you can’t tell the difference between the line for the check in kiosks and the line for baggage check (BECAUSE THERE ISNT ONE), while the “BA” counter which is supposedly common use is sitting there unused. I definitely second the idea of ditching the proprietary counters for fully common use throughout so that, especially during peak hours, the busier carriers can spread out. The current system is plainly idiotic — BA and AC have one flight each, both of which are evening flights, so why not give that space to other carriers that need it during the morning? And why Volaris—which only has two flights *per week*—has dedicated space is beyond me. It’s time to think for the 21st century, folks.

PHOTOSMK wrote:

As for the East Terminal expansion, I believe there will be four or six gates capable of handling international flights, and so those will all be shared use gates as well.

There will be six flexible gates—as far as have heard, only the two dual jetbridge gates are not being assigned to a specific carrier, although it makes sense that the int’l gates will be used by more than one carrier.

PHOTOSMK wrote:

And about British Airways' upgrade to the 744 in March, it is most likely due to Norwegian entering the market. With more seats available, BA can lower the cost of its tickets and still make as much money as it would have before. I believe there will be a few more premium seats as well on the aircraft, so that is more guaranteed profit for the carrier.

Yes and no. I speculated the same, but BA’s ticket cost hasn’t really gone down for the summer season. I would wager it’s about more premium seats and cargo and less about trying to fill the cheap seats in back.

Any chance of jetBlue rethinking making Austin a focus city or small hub in the near/mid-future timeframe? I seem to recall the "focus city" idea thrown around years ago.

Midwestindy wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

I often wonder what is in Austin that traffic is increasing so fast. Are they drawing passengers from San Antonio?

Population growth, tech growth, e.t.c. The city grew +19.93% from 2010-2016....

I agree the passenger growth at AUS comes mostly from population and job growth, however (and this is just my opinion looking from a distance, I don't have any numbers), I have to think there are a fair amount of people in San Antonio that drive to Austin to use the airport, considering it has many more options and SAT will likely never catch up because it really isn't able to grow much beyond what they have now.

Austin-San Antonio would have been better off constructing a regional airport IMO, but that ship has long since sailed.

FlyingSicilian wrote:

Any chance of jetBlue rethinking making Austin a focus city or small hub in the near/mid-future timeframe? I seem to recall the "focus city" idea thrown around years ago.

Probably more likely Delta opens a focus city in AUS before B6, but I agree it would be a nice spot for a B6 hub.

ADrum23 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

I often wonder what is in Austin that traffic is increasing so fast. Are they drawing passengers from San Antonio?

Population growth, tech growth, e.t.c. The city grew +19.93% from 2010-2016....

I agree the passenger growth at AUS comes mostly from population and job growth, however (and this is just my opinion looking from a distance, I don't have any numbers), I have to think there are a fair amount of people in San Antonio that drive to Austin to use the airport, considering it has many more options and SAT will likely never catch up because it really isn't able to grow much beyond what they have now.

Austin-San Antonio would have been better off constructing a regional airport IMO, but that ship has long since sailed.

Several of my friends that live in San Antonio frequently fly out of AUS so yes, we pull in passenger traffic from the SA Metro though I don't have specific numbers.

I don't think that it would have been better constructing a regional airport between the two cities. Maybe 30 to 40 years ago, it might have been reasonable, however Austin had brought the idea up If I remember correctly and San Antonio rejected. Having said that it ended up being the right choice. Our cities may be close together but we are not as close as DFW. Our region is better served with two major airports as opposed to one. IMO San Antonio's best choice would be to eventually build a new airport south of the city which would be outside of ABIA's 90 min drive range which their current airport is within. It would also open up better air access for south Texas.

JDawgboy512 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

Population growth, tech growth, e.t.c. The city grew +19.93% from 2010-2016....

I agree the passenger growth at AUS comes mostly from population and job growth, however (and this is just my opinion looking from a distance, I don't have any numbers), I have to think there are a fair amount of people in San Antonio that drive to Austin to use the airport, considering it has many more options and SAT will likely never catch up because it really isn't able to grow much beyond what they have now.

Austin-San Antonio would have been better off constructing a regional airport IMO, but that ship has long since sailed.

Several of my friends that live in San Antonio frequently fly out of AUS so yes, we pull in passenger traffic from the SA Metro though I don't have specific numbers.

I don't think that it would have been better constructing a regional airport between the two cities. Maybe 30 to 40 years ago, it might have been reasonable, however Austin had brought the idea up If I remember correctly and San Antonio rejected. Having said that it ended up being the right choice. Our cities may be close together but we are not as close as DFW. Our region is better served with two major airports as opposed to one. IMO San Antonio's best choice would be to eventually build a new airport south of the city which would be outside of ABIA's 90 min drive range which their current airport is within. It would also open up better air access for south Texas.

It was in the 90s, I think, but yeah, it was pitched and rejected.

A high speed rail link (yes, pipe dream, but still) would change the equation somewhat, but there’s no real chance of that happening in my lifetime. (Sad, as the corridor is getting more and more congested and it would definitely help...)

ADrum23 wrote:

I have to think there are a fair amount of people in San Antonio that drive to Austin to use the airport

I recall the City of San Antonio estimating that 'several hundred thousand' people per year are using Austin's airport. It would make sense. Air fares on many routes ex- Austin are lower and well over half-million people or more in SA region are within easy driving distance to Bergstrom.

khowaga wrote:

It was in the 90s, I think, but yeah, it was pitched and rejected.

It was actually in the 1970s and it's unclear which city rejected the notion of a joint airport. However, I used to have (and unfortunately downsized it off my shelf 25 years ago) a hardback, full color airport master plan that San Antonio had prepared. Not only did it detail a multi-parallel runway build out for the current SAT, it had a section detailing a joint use airport for the region.

What might have been a factor in the decision not to build a joint-use airport could have been the U.S. Air Force. It had two active AFBs in the region - Bergstrom and on the northeast side of SA Randolph AFB, one of the AF's primary jet trainer bases. Always wanted to spend a few days at the SA library sleuthing through old newspapers for the answer.

How close is AUS to woo AV to fly SAL-AUS?
Grant that AV hasn't taken former TACA SAL-MSY yet but SAL hub could generate some AUS and MSY traffic as of now.
IMHO, if AV is to fly to AUS, SAT passengers would fly AV from AUS.

dc10lover wrote:

I often wonder what is in Austin that traffic is increasing so fast. Are they drawing passengers from San Antonio?

150 people a day on average moves to the Austin area, that's the problem (not nearly enough road infrastructure to handle it) or reason.

2travel2know2 wrote:

How close is AUS to woo AV to fly SAL-AUS?
Grant that AV hasn't taken former TACA SAL-MSY yet but SAL hub could generate some AUS and MSY traffic as of now.
IMHO, if AV is to fly to AUS, SAT passengers would fly AV from AUS.

Seriously doubtful. There's very little business or VFR traffic between AUS and Latin America. I would actually expect to see AV in SAT before we see them in AUS. - SAT has multiple times daily AM and Interjet on SAT-MEX, they also have Volaris to GDL and AM to MTY.

Look how long it's taken AUS to get a route to a non-beach destination in Mexico that looks like it's actually doing well and might stick around - remember, this is AM's second attempt to launch AUS-MEX. They failed the first time about ten years ago, as did MX and Aeromar when they tried it. None of those services lasted more than 18 months.

Volaris has failed on AUS-GDL; the only reason the route is still in operation is that they're collecting a subsidiary from the city - the second that goes away they'll be gone.

I posted this in a different thread but word is the Austin Chamber of Commerce will have a big Delta announcement on Feb 6th.

Let the speculation begin.

JDawgboy512 wrote:

I posted this in a different thread but word is the Austin Chamber of Commerce will have a big Delta announcement on Feb 6th.

Let the speculation begin.

The airport hasn’t put out a press release about the SkyClub, or about the resumption of CVG, so those will probably be folded into a bigger announcement (I mean, the airport press people announce when there are new trash cans in the terminal, so it’s significant that they haven’t done so yet). Since it’s coming from the chamber, I’d guess the long rumored MX facility will be part of it, since that means the city can promote bringing another new employer to town.

khowaga wrote:

JDawgboy512 wrote:

I posted this in a different thread but word is the Austin Chamber of Commerce will have a big Delta announcement on Feb 6th.

Let the speculation begin.

The airport hasn’t put out a press release about the SkyClub, or about the resumption of CVG, so those will probably be folded into a bigger announcement (I mean, the airport press people announce when there are new trash cans in the terminal, so it’s significant that they haven’t done so yet). Since it’s coming from the chamber, I’d guess the long rumored MX facility will be part of it, since that means the city can promote bringing another new employer to town.

Delta has already put up their own promotion at gate 6 for the sky club. It will uniquely be the only sky club in their entire system with a Sky Deck being located at a non hub, non Focus City station.

IMG_0329.JPG

reggiet wrote:

khowaga wrote:

JDawgboy512 wrote:

I posted this in a different thread but word is the Austin Chamber of Commerce will have a big Delta announcement on Feb 6th.

Let the speculation begin.

The airport hasn’t put out a press release about the SkyClub, or about the resumption of CVG, so those will probably be folded into a bigger announcement (I mean, the airport press people announce when there are new trash cans in the terminal, so it’s significant that they haven’t done so yet). Since it’s coming from the chamber, I’d guess the long rumored MX facility will be part of it, since that means the city can promote bringing another new employer to town.

Delta has already put up their own promotion at gate 6 for the sky club. It will uniquely be the only sky club in their entire system with a Sky Deck being located at a non hub, non Focus City station.

IMG_0329.JPG

So I take it that means this upcoming announcement does not have to do with the possibility of Austin becoming a focus city or hub? I'm simply analyzing how you worded your post since you have been shown to know quite a lot about what's happening with Delta at ABIA. You were the first to state that a Skylounge was coming long before there was official confirmation.

JDawgboy512 wrote:

reggiet wrote:

khowaga wrote:

The airport hasn’t put out a press release about the SkyClub, or about the resumption of CVG, so those will probably be folded into a bigger announcement (I mean, the airport press people announce when there are new trash cans in the terminal, so it’s significant that they haven’t done so yet). Since it’s coming from the chamber, I’d guess the long rumored MX facility will be part of it, since that means the city can promote bringing another new employer to town.

Delta has already put up their own promotion at gate 6 for the sky club. It will uniquely be the only sky club in their entire system with a Sky Deck being located at a non hub, non Focus City station.

IMG_0329.JPG

So I take it that means this upcoming announcement does not have to do with the possibility of Austin becoming a focus city or hub? I'm simply analyzing how you worded your post since you have been shown to know quite a lot about what's happening with Delta at ABIA. You were the first to state that a Skylounge was coming long before there was official confirmation.

What I think reggiet is trying to say is that the sky club is already being promoted so isn't necessarily news, it won't likely be what is revealed on the 6th. I sure hope the reveal is a focus city and new routes!

JDawgboy512 wrote:

reggiet wrote:

khowaga wrote:

The airport hasn’t put out a press release about the SkyClub, or about the resumption of CVG, so those will probably be folded into a bigger announcement (I mean, the airport press people announce when there are new trash cans in the terminal, so it’s significant that they haven’t done so yet). Since it’s coming from the chamber, I’d guess the long rumored MX facility will be part of it, since that means the city can promote bringing another new employer to town.

Delta has already put up their own promotion at gate 6 for the sky club. It will uniquely be the only sky club in their entire system with a Sky Deck being located at a non hub, non Focus City station.




IMG_0329.JPG

So I take it that means this upcoming announcement does not have to do with the possibility of Austin becoming a focus city or hub? I'm simply analyzing how you worded your post since you have been shown to know quite a lot about what's happening with Delta at ABIA. You were the first to state that a Skylounge was coming long before there was official confirmation.

From what I’ve heen tracking here the last few years, I think delta has planted their flag in austin long term for a Focus City format. Stations like SJC, PDX and SEA are sister cities/connecting points to AUSs high tech economy, J Class demand, demographics, University complex, wealth, politics, and city styles. Ironically, the airport construction has not even closely kept up with emerging demand. So everything is delayed and AUS money is arguably being lost in a future revenue sense. (In late 2017, AUS was in the running with DEN for Amazons new HQ. Supposedly the lack of an expansive & fluid airport structure was a demerit that contributed to knocking AUS out of contention)

All 9 new gates are already accounted for and rumor is delta has the majority of those gates. I spoke with the BA station manager last week and When I asked about their request to the airport for a couple of the new gates, he told me they were told those gates are already accounted for. The theory is that delta has claimed them partly based on it being a first come first serve gate allocation from The City. Obviously the two gates with a double jet bridge (380 capable) will be shared amongst upcoming international carriers. The DL Sky Lounge will be on the second floor above several of the DL gates.

Below I’ve listed some anecdotes of why I think AUS Eventually does become
An AFP (Alternate Flying Program for flight crews) at a minimum and a Focus City at maximum.

***Delta’s lack of a true Southwest presence since the DFW hub was dissolved
***High end AUS J class regional pax opportunity partly illustrated thru BAs Profitable LHR feed and Condors FRA success
***Lack of a DL MX Warehouse Store anywhere close in the SW region. Current hubs for a mechanical equip transit to AUS go through MCO and JFK. That coupled with 40 new hire TechOps personnel coming likely before end of spring also points to a larger local footprint
***Seattle upgrades to twice daily in March with a commensurate upgauge in aircraft (mentioned on Deltas news webpage). I’m thinking A321 but can be 739 just as well. Currently 738
***RDU upgauges from RJ900 to 717 in Spring
***San Jose, Portland and Las Vegas are cities supposedly slated to come on board going into end of spring/summer season.
***In a two year span, there’s been a total transition of austin equip from M90s and regionals to nearly all airbus products with the new IFEs, larger bin space and updated lighting (i.e: Atl - Aus is all A321 now)
***Last fall, Delta switched the ramp to a true Delta ALA supervisor structure from DGS’s format around the same time that they got rid of the md90s and regional aircraft
***Several ACS folks have been recently promoted to red coats with 10-15 new personnel back filling empty and newly created ACS positions. This isn’t Including at least one new OSM (DL performance leader) that has transferred in since November. The additions don’t appear to be attrition moves based on retirements, transfers, etc.
***Regarding DL ramp changes, a DL pilot transiting thru last month told us that she heard that the ramp will be flipping from Delta Global Services (DGS) to a Delta Mainline Ramp, with current folks grandfathered in as DL RR new hires. We’ve heard this rumor long before last month. I’m thinking this change may occur at the time the Sky Lounge opens in 2019 if not sooner.
***The AUS team just won the Delta system wide station of the year (2017). This can’t hurt in cementing the idea to ‘Dad’ that a competent workforce is in place for dynamic growth of a new southwest footprint, if he so chooses that direction
Inside Baseball: 95% of the 70 ramp ready reserves are off duty full time professional firefighters. Mostly Austin Fire with some San Antonio Fire and Suburban Fire mixed in. This ramp workforce has been in place for 6 years. ***ABIA is doubling the capacity of the 7 bag carousels through 1-2 extra portals onto the main belt. This will help with current and future growth before going below grade construction for more in front of the main terminal, which will take some time to finish once started
***And finally there’s still the second phase of AUS’s Master Plan that involves 10-30 more gates extending from the main terminal south in two concourse fashion (around gate 6 and gate 14), allegedly starting after the new terminal extension is completed.

So ultimately, there’s lots of dynamic and moving parts in Delta’s AUS world. The next 12-18 months will be fascinating.

reggiet wrote:

(In late 2017, AUS was in the running with DEN for Amazons new HQ. Supposedly the lack of an expansive & fluid airport structure was a demerit that contributed to knocking AUS out of contention)
***Seattle upgrades to twice daily in March with a commensurate upgauge in aircraft (mentioned on Deltas news webpage). I’m thinking A321 but can be 739 just as well. Currently 738
***RDU upgauges from RJ900 to 717 in Spring
***In a two year span, there’s been a total transition of austin equip from M90s and regionals to nearly all airbus products with the new IFEs, larger bin space and updated lighting (i.e: Atl - Aus is all A321 now)

Not trying to be rude, but is the information you are presenting accurate?

1. AUS is still in the running for Amazon HQ2, in fact out of the 20 they are probably a top 10 contender https://www.amazon.com/b?node=17044620011
2. AUS-SEA is 1x daily and is scheduled to be 1x daily for the rest of the year
3. The upgrade on RDU-AUS was cancelled a while ago, it will still run on a CR9 at least for now
4. AUS-ATL is a mix of A320s and A321s it isn't all A321s, although most of the flights run on the A321s

. (In late 2017, AUS was in the running with DEN for Amazons new HQ. Supposedly the lack of an expansive & fluid airport structure was a demerit that contributed to knocking AUS out of contention)

You think it's a foregone conclusion it's DEN now? 20 city list was just released.

How many more gates could BA want? I suppose A380 service could make sense if they get the demand, but they wouldn't go double daily would they?