Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
kearnet wrote:One thing I did find odd is that I noticed on both the T4 and T3 sky train platforms were signs stating "Keep your event programs in your carry on", any idea what that is about?
chrisair wrote:kearnet wrote:One thing I did find odd is that I noticed on both the T4 and T3 sky train platforms were signs stating "Keep your event programs in your carry on", any idea what that is about?
Just realized this never got answered.
Some programs use a metallic ink in the cover designs and it causes all sorts of hell to break loose when the baggage scanners downstairs see it. That sign first came out during the Super Bowl and Pro Bowl a few years ago. We had the same warning inside the media center when they gave us the programs.
I guess the scanners at the gates don't read the ink the same way as the ones downstairs.
It's similar to the signs that come out around NASCAR that say please don't check engines, tires or car parts on the plane.
kearnet wrote:chrisair wrote:kearnet wrote:One thing I did find odd is that I noticed on both the T4 and T3 sky train platforms were signs stating "Keep your event programs in your carry on", any idea what that is about?
Just realized this never got answered.
Some programs use a metallic ink in the cover designs and it causes all sorts of hell to break loose when the baggage scanners downstairs see it. That sign first came out during the Super Bowl and Pro Bowl a few years ago. We had the same warning inside the media center when they gave us the programs.
I guess the scanners at the gates don't read the ink the same way as the ones downstairs.
It's similar to the signs that come out around NASCAR that say please don't check engines, tires or car parts on the plane.
Ahhh, thank you! I'm guessing it’s more so that downstairs they’d have to do a forced inspections and having to open possibly thousands of extra checked bags above their normal volume they usually process so it’s just easier to have pax take them through the pax checkpoints where they'll be easier to access and assess.
Darenriley wrote:With American announcing that their PHX-LHR is going year-round, I wonder if this also signals that BA may be retiring their 747 from PHX-LHR this fall and moving to a smaller plane?
travaz wrote:Darenriley wrote:With American announcing that their PHX-LHR is going year-round, I wonder if this also signals that BA may be retiring their 747 from PHX-LHR this fall and moving to a smaller plane?
I would hope BA moves to a 787-9.
alasizon wrote:travaz wrote:Darenriley wrote:With American announcing that their PHX-LHR is going year-round, I wonder if this also signals that BA may be retiring their 747 from PHX-LHR this fall and moving to a smaller plane?
I would hope BA moves to a 787-9.
I believe the final plan is for them to be a 772 purely for cargo volume purposes. I wouldn't put it past them though to run a 789 during the slower season since AA can still supply that same cargo volume now.
cathay747 wrote:alasizon wrote:travaz wrote:
I would hope BA moves to a 787-9.
I believe the final plan is for them to be a 772 purely for cargo volume purposes. I wouldn't put it past them though to run a 789 during the slower season since AA can still supply that same cargo volume now.
I would imagine a 772 as well in this config (per SeatGuru):
Boeing 777-200 (772) Three Class Layout 1
Seats:48 Club World|203 World Traveller|24 World Traveller Plus
...that being about as close to the 744 config (total seats, and with only 4 less J seats), but maybe also these config's. (interchangeably depending on the day/demand):
Boeing 777-200 (772) Three Class Layout 2
Seats:40 Club World|219 World Traveller|24 World Traveller Plus
Boeing 777-200 (772) Three Class Layout 3
Seats:32 Club World|252 World Traveller|52 World Traveller Plus
Given the lack of demand/need for F out of here (or so it seems), and the drastically lower economy capacity, I'm not seeing a 789 being the replacement, whenever it happens:
Boeing 787-9 (789)
Seats:42 Club World|8 First|127 World Traveller|39 World Traveller Plus
SQ317 wrote:Given BA's new A350s won't have First, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them replacing the 747 on mid-J routes w/ low F demand such as this. After all, that is what BA are buying them to replace - see https://www.ausbt.com.au/british-airway ... -1000-jets
SQ317 wrote:Given BA's new A350s won't have First, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them replacing the 747 on mid-J routes w/ low F demand such as this. After all, that is what BA are buying them to replace - see https://www.ausbt.com.au/british-airway ... -1000-jets
cathay747 wrote:Hmmmm...yes, good point. I forgot about those. Well, we'll just have to wait and see. This is all informed speculation for now. BA may surprise us. Hell, it's even possible, if AA had the metal to spare, that they turn the route over to all-AA metal.
cle757 wrote:Hearing rumors that UA will expand PHX once they move to T3. Any idea where they would expand?..I know they could use more IAD service.
alasizon wrote:SQ317 wrote:Given BA's new A350s won't have First, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them replacing the 747 on mid-J routes w/ low F demand such as this. After all, that is what BA are buying them to replace - see https://www.ausbt.com.au/british-airway ... -1000-jets
The A350 may be an option but I think there are better routes for them to put that on first.cathay747 wrote:Hmmmm...yes, good point. I forgot about those. Well, we'll just have to wait and see. This is all informed speculation for now. BA may surprise us. Hell, it's even possible, if AA had the metal to spare, that they turn the route over to all-AA metal.
Very likely not going to happen, BA is a staple and it performs far better on the Europe side (for both AA and BA) than it does on the US side. BA has a lot of pride in serving PHX for as long as they have and there are a lot of good cargo contracts that they have.
jplatts wrote:cle757 wrote:Hearing rumors that UA will expand PHX once they move to T3. Any idea where they would expand?..I know they could use more IAD service.
While I could see UA possibly bringing back PHX-CLE nonstop service since UA still has nonstop service to some non-UA hub destinations from its former CLE hub, I do not expect UA to add any other new nonstop routes out of PHX. However, I could see UA increasing frequencies on existing nonstop routes out of PHX to its hubs.
wildwobby wrote:Currently a JAL 777 sitting by terminal 2. Not sure when it arrived or when it departs. I assume it is a baseball charter.
treebeard787 wrote:wildwobby wrote:Currently a JAL 777 sitting by terminal 2. Not sure when it arrived or when it departs. I assume it is a baseball charter.
It arrived at 12am last night from Haneda. I don't know exactly when they are planning to depart. It is baseball charter, the team arrived a few weeks ago on a JAL 787.
alasizon wrote:treebeard787 wrote:wildwobby wrote:Currently a JAL 777 sitting by terminal 2. Not sure when it arrived or when it departs. I assume it is a baseball charter.
It arrived at 12am last night from Haneda. I don't know exactly when they are planning to depart. It is baseball charter, the team arrived a few weeks ago on a JAL 787.
Should be departing in the AM tomorrow from what I recall. They typically vacate the fields today since the Mariners and Padres move in.
cle757 wrote:I know they could use more IAD service.
wn676 wrote:cle757 wrote:I know they could use more IAD service.
The current daily flight is timed to meet the afternoon ”superbank” and is probably the only reason a nonstop exists at all. Outside of that there’s really not much more that IAD offers that IAH, ORD, and EWR can’t already provide. DCA is well-covered by AA and there’s probably not a lot of value in chasing PHX-WAS O&D.
I think UA will add frequency though as the other hub bank structures allow, and upgauge as well. The MAX 10 would be a good fit for the ORD and EWR fights where gate space is at a premium.
cathay747 wrote:Still seems to me that with the development & population explosion in Loudon & western/NW Fairfax counties a 2nd nonstop by UA IAD/PHX/IAD ought to work after all these years. But perhaps not...UA is obviously the best judge of that.
jplatts wrote:cathay747 wrote:Still seems to me that with the development & population explosion in Loudon & western/NW Fairfax counties a 2nd nonstop by UA IAD/PHX/IAD ought to work after all these years. But perhaps not...UA is obviously the best judge of that.
While WN doesn't currently serve IAD nonstop from PHX, WN already serves IAD and WN could add PHX-IAD nonstop service.
cathay747 wrote:Good point; I forgot about WN. If there was enough demand for a non-hub-feeding P2P IAD/PHX/IAD flight (so read here: not by UA), you'd think WN would do it.
Darenriley wrote:Phoenix Business Journal had a report today about what it would take Phoenix to get a non-stop flight to Asia and it says business demand is the key driver. It is behind a paywall, did anyone have a chance to read this? It does say that American Airlines and Japan Airlines could be working on a deal to launch a direct flight between Phoenix and Tokyo.
https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/new ... irect.html
Nicknuzzii wrote:I read somewhere that the airlines Currently serving terminal 2 will move to the new section of terminal of 3. Is this true? If so when?
MO11 wrote:Nicknuzzii wrote:I read somewhere that the airlines Currently serving terminal 2 will move to the new section of terminal of 3. Is this true? If so when?
Do you mean when Terminal 2 closes? And do you know that airlines that formerly occupied the north side of T3 have moved to the "new section"?
Midwestindy wrote:Darenriley wrote:Phoenix Business Journal had a report today about what it would take Phoenix to get a non-stop flight to Asia and it says business demand is the key driver. It is behind a paywall, did anyone have a chance to read this? It does say that American Airlines and Japan Airlines could be working on a deal to launch a direct flight between Phoenix and Tokyo.
https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/new ... irect.html
PHX has met with Hainan, Korean, AA, and JAL
Hainan: "Phoenix is on the list of places we want to fly""It's not at the top of the list, but it isn't at the bottom of the lister either"
Korean's flight to LAS costs 80-100 million a year
Vasu Raja AA VP of Network planning: "As big of a market as PHX is, there just isn't enough of a return"
Steve Smith JAL VP of Global Sales: "Many more people, especially from small businesses, who go to Japan/Asia on a regular basis. However they book round-trip tickets to LA/SF and then another round-trip to Asia. As far as PHX officials know, these individuals were just in Cali for a week and not in Japan."
Smith plans to work with PHX and Economic Development officials to determine the number of regular flyers
You need to have business travel to make it worth it, the front of the plane pays for the rest of it
There is a big desire from Asian tourists to visit the American Southwest, however most are choosing to fly into LAS rather than PHX, which is a reason Hainan and Korean fly to LAS.
Airline most likely to fly PHX-Asia is AA, however, they won't say how close they are to landing a flight
"The recent expansion of the LHR flight could help determine if PHX could make a nonstop flight to Asia work," Raja said
"Let's see how Heathrow does first"
Development and expansion at NRT could open up room for an NRT flight as well.
travaz wrote:I would think there would be some demand from Honeywell, Boeing, Intel and others in the valley. I don't know if it is enough but maybe 4X a week
cathay747 wrote:travaz wrote:I would think there would be some demand from Honeywell, Boeing, Intel and others in the valley. I don't know if it is enough but maybe 4X a week
My thinking is that 4x/week would be the max. freq. such a route could support; and possibly starting with only 3x/week.
alasizon wrote:cathay747 wrote:travaz wrote:I would think there would be some demand from Honeywell, Boeing, Intel and others in the valley. I don't know if it is enough but maybe 4X a week
My thinking is that 4x/week would be the max. freq. such a route could support; and possibly starting with only 3x/week.
The problem is that most of the demand from within the valley with those companies is that they are not dealing with the International business for the most part; its mostly domestic. I'm not convinced there is enough demand to support a non-stop that would be at a premium price compared to the very low cost flights available from LAX & SFO.
SierraPacific wrote:Are there any updates on the trans-border cargo hub that is being built at Gateway? The local Queen Creek paper put out an article on a new Mexican cargo carrier starting service but neglecting to put the name of the airline in it.
https://queencreekindependent.com/news/ ... y-airport/
SierraPacific wrote:Are there any updates on the trans-border cargo hub that is being built at Gateway? The local Queen Creek paper put out an article on a new Mexican cargo carrier starting service but neglecting to put the name of the airline in it.
https://queencreekindependent.com/news/ ... y-airport/
MO11 wrote:SierraPacific wrote:Are there any updates on the trans-border cargo hub that is being built at Gateway? The local Queen Creek paper put out an article on a new Mexican cargo carrier starting service but neglecting to put the name of the airline in it.
https://queencreekindependent.com/news/ ... y-airport/
From what I've been told, it will be Aeronaves TSM
alasizon wrote:SierraPacific wrote:Are there any updates on the trans-border cargo hub that is being built at Gateway? The local Queen Creek paper put out an article on a new Mexican cargo carrier starting service but neglecting to put the name of the airline in it.
https://queencreekindependent.com/news/ ... y-airport/
I'll believe it when I see the first flight operate out of there. The executive director who is quoted mentioned Cal Pac as still flying there and named both Westjet and Swoop as separate airlines flying to Gateway. I think its great that Gateway is trying to develop itself but I just don't see it getting these "thousands of high-wage jobs" when its really just going to be warehouse jobs at best.
mga707 wrote:travaz wrote:I cant imagine that deicing is required too many times in a year. I would think that they could go a couple of years without having to deice a plane at PHX.
I know PHX is over a thousand feet lower in elevation than TUS, but it's been cold all over AZ since Christmas. Hard freeze warning tonight and tomorrow night for Pima County (Tucson) as well as other adjoining counties. Snow all around the Tucson metro area this AM. Sub-30-degree morning lows expected to continue through the week.
Vctony wrote:Some interesting developments in the "preferred alternatives" listed in the Comprehensive Asset Management plan.
Among the most interesting proposals:
https://www.skyharbor.com/docs/default- ... ff229588_4
- A 6 gate second T3N pier concourse (which appears similar to LAX's T8 and will have a secure connector between T3N and T4N but may be served by buses when initially constructed)
- The removal of the N3 and N4 concourses and the addition of a N3.5 concourse which is 150 feet wide for international operations
- A piered West Terminal with a secure connection to T3 (and with that a secure connection to T4).
Vctony wrote:Some interesting developments in the "preferred alternatives" listed in the Comprehensive Asset Management plan.
Among the most interesting proposals:
https://www.skyharbor.com/docs/default- ... ff229588_4
- A 6 gate second T3N pier concourse (which appears similar to LAX's T8 and will have a secure connector between T3N and T4N but may be served by buses when initially constructed)
- The removal of the N3 and N4 concourses and the addition of a N3.5 concourse which is 150 feet wide for international operations
- A piered West Terminal with a secure connection to T3 (and with that a secure connection to T4).
Vctony wrote:Some interesting developments in the "preferred alternatives" listed in the Comprehensive Asset Management plan.
Among the most interesting proposals:
https://www.skyharbor.com/docs/default- ... ff229588_4
- A 6 gate second T3N pier concourse (which appears similar to LAX's T8 and will have a secure connector between T3N and T4N but may be served by buses when initially constructed)
- The removal of the N3 and N4 concourses and the addition of a N3.5 concourse which is 150 feet wide for international operations
- A piered West Terminal with a secure connection to T3 (and with that a secure connection to T4).
BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:Vctony wrote:Some interesting developments in the "preferred alternatives" listed in the Comprehensive Asset Management plan.
Among the most interesting proposals:
https://www.skyharbor.com/docs/default- ... ff229588_4
- A 6 gate second T3N pier concourse (which appears similar to LAX's T8 and will have a secure connector between T3N and T4N but may be served by buses when initially constructed)
- The removal of the N3 and N4 concourses and the addition of a N3.5 concourse which is 150 feet wide for international operations
- A piered West Terminal with a secure connection to T3 (and with that a secure connection to T4).
This is really interesting. After looking over this, my question is: if this expansion were to ocurr, would there be a need to construct an additional runway? Potentially a 26/8 L and R? Seems like a lot of added capacity. How is this measured? Thanks!
skyharborshome wrote:We always thought that eventually they would go north and one comment I always heard was how difficult that would be with the cargo train traffic. Looks like they are ok to dig a trench however once they put cargo up there, looks like we are locked into 3 runways for the foreseeable future. With the rate Phoenix mega-plex is growing, they may start looking to increase IWA usage and in a couple of decades if the plans for way out west happen, there could be a small reliever there too. With all the land on the west side and the 3 big runways at Gateway, would be much cheaper and less disruptive than building a fourth or fifth at PHX.