Nnelson97 wrote:

Any news on BAs return? The UK Covid numbers are going the right way our are not however.

Currently pushed back to late-September.

I'll be shocked if it starts then, considering that the EU is already set to do an about-face on allowing USAmericans in, less than a month after they started.
https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/news/e ... ces-claim/

Yes, Britain is of course no longer part of the EU, but they're certainly watching what's going on there. And considering that the disease is still rampant in both the US and UK, and the US still is not accepting general traffic from the UK; I sincerely doubt we'll be getting our flagship foreign flight back any time soon.

Nnelson97 wrote:

Hoping it's up and running by Dec as we have a flight booked.

Me and my travel buddy were scheduled to be on it second week of September, with about 10 people in business and maybe a dozen in coach.
Now, we're routed to LHR via ORD, and bypassing entering the UK altogether as opposed to doing a stopover there.

As much as it sucks to not do the nonstop, it's ultimately BA's responsibility to get you there. You'll have to be a bit proactive about it though, as the most they'll do is send you an email saying the flight was cancelled, and that you have options.

But they're pretty generous about allowing you to choose between their own and AA metal. We saw plenty of availability to reroute via DFW, ORD, CLT, MIA, PHL, etc.

Here are the number of passengers, number of seats, and load factors for WN flights out of MSY in May 2021:
ATL-MSY - 16283 passengers, 18088 seats, 90.02% load factor
AUS-MSY - 9456 passengers, 10174 seats, 92.94% load factor
BNA-MSY - 19861 passengers, 21694 seats, 91.55% load factor
BWI-MSY - 11255 passengers, 12073 seats, 93.22% load factor
DAL-MSY - 37257 passengers, 42164 seats, 88.36% load factor
DEN-MSY - 23741 passengers, 27467 seats, 86.43% load factor
FLL-MSY - 8784 passengers, 10065 seats, 87.27% load factor
HOU-MSY - 38197 passengers, 42971 seats, 88.89% load factor
IAH-MSY - 14899 passengers, 25311 seats, 58.86% load factor
LAS-MSY - 9759 passengers, 10827 seats, 90.14% load factor
LAX-MSY - 8034 passengers, 8876 seats, 90.51% load factor
MCO-MSY - 29136 passengers, 33282 seats, 87.54% load factor
MDW-MSY - 22732 passengers, 24949 seats, 91.11% load factor
MSY-PHX - 8785 passengers, 10705 seats, 82.06% load factor
MSY-STL - 1551 passengers, 1718 seats, 90.28% load factor
MSY-TPA - 15966 passengers, 18724 seats, 85.27% load factor

The airport posted May statistics.

https://flymsy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Airline-Statistics-May-2021.pdf

828,471 passengers passed through the airport in May. This was a 860.2% increase over last May, but traffic was still down 35.6% from May 2019. This was the busiest month since the pandemic began, and continues to month over month growth observed throughout 2021.

DL ended seat blocking, and this pushed the carrier to 3rd place behind WN and AA. NK was a close 4th.

I also now have enough data to show that MSY was the 38th busiest airport in the nation through the first 5 months of the year, and was positioned between SMF and RDU. This ranking is not substantially different than before the pandemic.

SMF = 2,807,944
MSY = 2,730,210
RDU = 2,476,017

https://sacramento.aero/scas/about/reports
https://www.rdu.com/airport-authority/statistics/

Breeze secured additional funding, so it will be interesting to see where they send the A220s. Hoping MSY will see some since the airport is a base, and some longer range routes like BDL, PIT, and BUF are served. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/18/low-cos ... nding.html

NolaMD88fan wrote:

DL ended seat blocking, and this pushed the carrier to 3rd place behind WN and AA.

Still feels cray that any full service carrier is even close to where DL is at MSY....

...remember when it was almost bigger than AA and UA combined, filling all of old-concourse D. *sigh*

May 2021 domestic load factors and passenger numbers by route have been calculated. There is no international update given the service suspensions associated with COVID-19 travel restrictions.

As compared to May 2020, airport-wide seat count rose by 216.8%, and pax traffic increased by 774.4% resulting in a 176.0% increase in load factors to 84.3%. This was the best month in terms of load factors since before the pandemic.

The route with the highest load factor in May was WN's MSY-BWI route with a 93.2% load factor. The route with the lowest load factor was G4's MSY-USA route with a 57.6% load factor.

May Domestic route seat count(% change), pax count(%change), and load factor(change):

Airline............Seats..............................Pax..........................LF
4B.....................144................................74........................51.4%
AA..............186,942(+174.9%).......166,985(+546.7%)......89.3%(+135.2%)
AS................11,214(+64.2%).............8,930(+238.5%)......79.6%(+41.0%)
B6.................17,306(+158.9%)........13,730(+874.4%)......79.3%(+276.4%)
DL..............158,055(+737.3%).......126,073(+2,226.1%)...79.8%(+177.8%)
F9.................22,332(+253.1%)........17,762(+548.5%).......79.5%(+83.6%)
G4..................6,498(-31.5%)..............4,205(+57.6)............64.7%(+129.9%)
NK..............129,784(+2,008.2%)...107,453(+5,227.4%)....82.8%(+152.7%)
UA..............111,602(+661.1%)........91,206(+1,383.3%).....81.7%(+94.9%)
WN.............315,507(+90.3%)........272,269(+524.2%).......86.3%(+228.0%)

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

The airport posted June statistics.

https://flymsy.com/wp-content/uploads/2 ... e-2021.pdf

830,287 passengers passed through the airport in June. This was a 324.4% increase over last June, but traffic was still down 28.5% from June 2019. This was the busiest month since the pandemic began, and continues to month over month growth observed throughout 2021.

MSY was the 38th busiest airport in the nation through the first 6 months of the year, and remained positioned between SMF and RDU.

SMF = 3,788,492
MSY = 3,560,497
RDU = 3,363,266

https://sacramento.aero/scas/about/reports
https://www.rdu.com/airport-authority/statistics/

It looks like DL has cancelled the nonstop to LAX until November 23rd. I know they have to rebuild their schedule, but does anyone have an idea on when the flight might actually resume? Limited DL flight operations is causing "Schedule Change Saturday" run amok! Thanks.

TS (Air Transat) has announced the resumption of 2x weekly MSY-YUL service starting Nov. 4th. Great to see this carrier returning to the market. So far, 3 of the 5 pre-pandemic international carriers have announced a return to MSY (AC, BA, TS). We will see if DE decides to return for another Summer season (guessing not at this point), and CM is definitely not resuming service.

https://www.nola.com/news/business/article_256dc48e-1b20-11ec-ada1-bf64bb91cedd.html?fbclid=IwAR1T-9UPMoOXIpnD_hnAf1ypeEoHmgU0Pj63QQxCM0nG8j8-O2HClCWPPRU

NolaMD88fan wrote:

CM is definitely not resuming service.

Have we gotten confirmation on that?

I know that previous dates on their schedule had been zeroed out, when TPA wasn't. But have they gone further?

LAX772LR wrote:

NolaMD88fan wrote:

CM is definitely not resuming service.

Have we gotten confirmation on that?

I know that previous dates on their schedule had been zeroed out, when TPA wasn't. But have they gone further?

Everything I've read indictes they will not be back. Likely a combo of NK flying to SAP and the 737 fleet being retired.

New terminal rated as best large airport in the country by JD Power survey! Very high ranking for the food and beverage options. It really is a great facility from the passenger perspective.

https://www.jdpower.com/business/press- ... tion-study

NolaMD88fan wrote:

It really is a great facility from the passenger perspective.

Indeed. Just wish they'd made it bigger.

LAX772LR wrote:

NolaMD88fan wrote:

It really is a great facility from the passenger perspective.

Indeed. Just wish they'd made it bigger.

And wider (at least the corridor from TSA to the concourses).

Nola wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

NolaMD88fan wrote:

It really is a great facility from the passenger perspective.

Indeed. Just wish they'd made it bigger.

And wider (at least the corridor from TSA to the concourses).

Anyone have a rendering of what the full ~45 gates are supposed to look like?

I've always assumed it'd look like the finger, at LGA's new terminal, but I don't know that for fact.

NolaMD88fan wrote:

...and CM is definitely not resuming service.

When CM retired the E190 from its fleet, CM lost the right-sized aircraft which could meet its MSY demand, B737-800 is too much capacity for PTY-MSY (except perhaps for Xmas and New Year traffic).
Also, its PTY-MSY evenings, MSY-PTY mornings schedule wasn't really attractive.
Could a CM B737-800 PTY-MSY-PTY daytime rotation, only Monday afternoon and Friday morning work? IMHO, yes.

2travel2know2 wrote:

Also, its PTY-MSY evenings, MSY-PTY mornings schedule wasn't really attractive.

Definitely disagree with that part.

It worked quite well, if you were MSY O&D (which by their own inaugural admission, is what they were after), as it maximized cnnxs in both directions.

What limited it was their less-than-daily service, that didn't always line up well with UA@IAH, on the days they didn't op.

LAX772LR wrote:

Nola wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Indeed. Just wish they'd made it bigger.

And wider (at least the corridor from TSA to the concourses).

Anyone have a rendering of what the full ~45 gates are supposed to look like?

I've always assumed it'd look like the finger, at LGA's new terminal, but I don't know that for fact.

I've seen the overall plan blueprints for both the extension concourse planned (loosely though it may be) for the end of A, and for the third runway (also planned loosely, but not currently needed, mired in environmental concerns, and under a NIMBY lawsuit storm gun). If you look at the north terminal from above, it looks a bit like an "F". The third concourse would make it look a lot like a capital letter "E". That extension would cost the gate at the end of A, but would add 6 gates along it's length. It could potentially be made two sided, and the print I saw indicated some provision for that possibility. In talking to someone involved in the north terminal project, they seemed to think it unlikely that the extension would ever get built, both because projections were showing that the traffic would never justify it, and that the modifications to the luggage system would be extensive and expensive to make work for that volume.

LightningZ71 wrote:

both because projections were showing that the traffic would never justify it

That seems to be a rather odd conclusion, especially considering the explosive growth seen 2015-2020.

LAX772LR wrote:

2travel2know2 wrote:

Also, its PTY-MSY evenings, MSY-PTY mornings schedule wasn't really attractive.

Definitely disagree with that part.

It worked quite well, if you were MSY O&D (which by their own inaugural admission, is what they were after), as it maximised cnnxs in both directions.

How much of MSY traffic is Louisiana O/D and New Orleans leisure? For a MSY-bound tourist (or business person), flying CM meant 2 additional hotel nights, the arrival night and the night before the morning departure.
When CM started TPA, CM also said it was after the O/D traffic, the flights had the same rotation MSY had and CM soon realised it'd not work. And those were the CM E190 days.

What limited it was their less-than-daily service, that didn't always line up well with UA@IAH, on the days they didn't op.

Now when CM starts ATL, MSY will have the choice of DL interline via ATL.
IMHO, with the schedule CM had - even with E190 - MSY could never operate daily and still be sustainable.
If MSY's airport management does want to keep its PTY flight, best is to suggest CM to operate twice weekly, daytime rotations, Monday afternoons and Friday mornings; that way that frequency and MSY times, somewhat can get leisure traffic (both ways) to make it viable. Plus, CM would have no need for crew overnight accommodation or to keep crews in MSY between flights.

Oh, there was a bunch of growth during that time period to be sure, but, the NOAB concluded that that level of growth was not sustainable. It was outstripping both the regional population growth, and the growth in local tourism. There was no reason to expect that it could continue the way that it was going for very much longer.

Nola wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

NolaMD88fan wrote:

It really is a great facility from the passenger perspective.

Indeed. Just wish they'd made it bigger.

And wider (at least the corridor from TSA to the concourses).

I came here just to say the same thing. Even with 2/3 the normal passenger volume there are parts of the terminal that still feel crowded and cramped, especially those corridors. I would hope that any planned expansion includes additional security and baggage areas. Of more pressing concern is the need for more parking and ideally a north terminal rental car facility. Between the staffing and traffic issues, relying on shuttles to the south terminal is a major drawback for many travelers. And would it be too much to ask for a bridge from the long term garage to the check-in level? Not only would it be more convenient for those travelers but could help alleviate some of the pick-up area congestion.

While the facility overall has been great, some of the planning and space allocation decisions seem questionable. I would wager that air traffic will continue to outstrip many metrics. I am seeing a lot more people who work remotely move to the area or split time here and elsewhere. Many of them are not counted or undercounted in the census, but contribute disproportionately to air demand. They are able to traffic much more frequently, taking working vacations, which is boosting both inbound and outbound traffic, especially during non-peak times of year.

Regarding CM, I thought it was nice to have an option to get to South America without the overnight flights that are usually required with other hubs. Especially if I am traveling for business, I would need an extra night anyway since I wouldn't want to hop off a red-eye and go directly into a meeting. To me the biggest issue was the 4x or less frequency, especially since it was almost never cost effective to fly CM one way and UA the other. While you could often save some time via PTY, CM was almost always the most expensive option when I checked. I think it would be more effective to focus on more NK, BZ etc. to get some service to places with more O&D such as MBJ/NAS/MEX/SJO.

2travel2know2 wrote:

How much of MSY traffic is Louisiana O/D and New Orleans leisure? For a MSY-bound tourist (or business person), flying CM meant 2 additional hotel nights, the arrival night and the night before the morning departure.

I mean, what's really to say:
The setup was clearly meant to maximize connections for Louisiana-side O&D; and the carrier had 5yrs to change that setup, but didn't... indicating that they found that it best justified their overall numbers/logistics, vis-a-vis other available options.

LightningZ71 wrote:

Oh, there was a bunch of growth during that time period to be sure, but, the NOAB concluded that that level of growth was not sustainable. It was outstripping both the regional population growth, and the growth in local tourism. There was no reason to expect that it could continue the way that it was going for very much longer.

To be fair, that sounds about the Louisiana way: "why expect better."

BA announced the resumption of SAN last weekend, and this morning announced the resumption of AUS.

So, for MSY and BNA, here's hoping!

https://www.austintexas.gov/news/britis ... on-service

It will be quite a while before the airport needs any type of gate extension. Concourse A sits virtually unused most of the day. Those 6 gates could feasibly support 50 or so additional departures depending on which carriers decide to use them to their fullest extent. Currently, that may very well be Breeze if they survive in the long run.

It may be the Louisiana way to not expect better, but, the sad fact of the matter is that the NOAB is completely broke after the North terminal project, and then the crushing traffic loss of the pandemic, to the point that they can't even pay for the demo of the portions of the old South terminal that need to be torn down. Unless the magic money fairy, or uncle sugar up in D.C. gifts the NOAB with a large outlay of funds, nothing is going to happen any time soon.

LAX772LR wrote:

BA announced the resumption of SAN last weekend, and this morning announced the resumption of AUS.

So, for MSY and BNA, here's hoping!

https://www.austintexas.gov/news/britis ... on-service

It's already on the schedule for November.

LightningZ71 wrote:

It may be the Louisiana way to not expect better, but, the sad fact of the matter is that the NOAB is completely broke after the North terminal project, and then the crushing traffic loss of the pandemic, to the point that they can't even pay for the demo of the portions of the old South terminal that need to be torn down. Unless the magic money fairy, or uncle sugar up in D.C. gifts the NOAB with a large outlay of funds, nothing is going to happen any time soon.

Indeed, knew the financial aspect (from as you say, inability to tear down old A-C). Was just lamenting the mentality.

msyflyer wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

BA announced the resumption of SAN last weekend, and this morning announced the resumption of AUS.

So, for MSY and BNA, here's hoping!

It's already on the schedule for November.

That doesn't mean much. It's been in the schedules since early spring.

I've been booked on it, and had to get transferred via ORD since resumption has been pushed back multiple times.

While that's certainly a better position to be in than the other secondary N.Am airports (PIT, PDX, CHS, YYC) who got zeroed out a long time ago, it's still a bit nerve-wracking, until they formally announce.

On a happier note, it is worth noting that they've brought back New Orleans, Tampa, Nashville, and San Jose (SJC) as dedicated pages for their North American operations page!

https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/de ... ew-orleans

Doesn't mean anything official, but a good sign!

Its probably going to get pushed back again due to Ida. I really don't expect it to resume until after the first of the year at this point. The current November restart is a place-holder at best.

June 2021 domestic load factors and passenger numbers by route have been calculated. There is no international update given the service suspensions associated with COVID-19 travel restrictions.

As compared to June 2020, airport-wide seat count rose by 154.4%, and pax traffic increased by 312.0% resulting in a 62.0% increase in load factors to 83.8%.

The route with the highest load factor in June was a tie between WN's MSY-LAX and AS's MSY-SEA route with a 93.4% load factor. The route with the lowest load factor was 4B's MSY-GLH route with a 43.8% load factor.

Silver Airways started service to JAX, and the route did well in terms of loads with a load factor of 79.4%. Hopefully, we will see further route expansion by Silver from MSY in the near future.

AA started service to AUS and this route also did well with a load factor of 82.0%.

WN initiated service to MIA, and the route did decently with a 76.5% load factor in the first weeks of service.

June Domestic route seat count(% change), pax count(%change), and load factor(change):

Airline............Seats..............................Pax..........................LF
3M.................1,120..............................889.........................79.4%
4B.......................96................................42........................43.8%
AA..............180,618(+128.4%).......160,804(+231.7%)......89.0%(+45.2%)
AS................10,604(+21.8%).............9,906(+90.8%).........93.4%(+33.8%)
B6.................23,942(+299.6%)........20,790(+948.4%).......86.8%(+162.4%)
DL..............156,542(+445.2%).......125,845(+861.6%).......80.4%(+76.4%)
F9.................16,412(+110.4%)........13,274(+143.9%).......80.9%(+15.9%)
G4..................5,136(+0.7%)..............4,064(+81.4).............79.1%(+80.1%)
NK..............123,214(+1,353.7%)...102,184(+1,850.8%)....82.9%(+34.2%)
UA..............116,550(+708.7%)........93,452(+1,001.4%).....80.2%(+36.2%)
WN.............361,192(+55.0%)........302,576(+169.6%).......83.8%(+73.9%)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zx1l3b1yQKyz5yRYvlM7Q2RDnkXkW8SFwSHCml4ski4/edit?usp=sharing

As posted on another thread, BA will be restarting the MSY-LHR route on Dec. 9th. This was confirmed through an official press release from BA. The flight will restart with 3x weekly service (T/Th/Sa) using 787-800 aircraft.

Extremely happy to be proven wrong about CM. MSY is currently slated to resume service on 9/10/22. Obviously, a long way off, but it's good see the market not being officially terminated. It's also reassuring that several other leisure heavy markets are slated to return on that date including PVR and LIR. My guess is we'll see a frequency reduction to 3x weekly given the larger aircraft being used on the route, but it will be nice to have some connectivity through PTY. https://destinationsguide.copaair.com/e ... stinations

Here are the number of passengers, number of seats, and load factors for WN out of MSY in July 2021:
ATL-MSY - 19052 passengers, 21458 seats, 88.79% load factor
AUS-MSY - 15218 passengers, 16863 seats, 90.24% load factor
BNA-MSY - 21040 passengers, 23296 seats, 90.32% load factor
BWI-MSY - 14224 passengers, 15689 seats, 90.66% load factor
DAL-MSY - 38143 passengers, 43847 seats, 86.99% load factor
DEN-MSY - 23845 passengers, 27149 seats, 87.83% load factor
FLL-MSY - 19877 passengers, 23955 seats, 82.98% load factor
HOU-MSY - 39776 passengers, 50023 seats, 79.52% load factor
IAH-MSY - 17186 passengers, 32234 seats, 53.32% load factor
LAS-MSY - 16490 passengers, 17983 seats, 91.70% load factor
LAX-MSY - 7753 passengers, 8221 seats, 94.31% load factor
LGA-MSY - 1220 passengers, 1287 seats, 94.79% load factor
MCO-MSY - 26772 passengers, 29340 seats, 91.25% load factor
MDW-MSY - 22728 passengers, 24794 seats, 91.67% load factor
MIA-MSY - 6424 passengers, 7884 seats, 81.48% load factor
MSY-PHX - 8984 passengers, 9651 seats, 93.09% load factor
MSY-STL - 6371 passengers, 7884 seats, 80.81% load factor
MSY-TPA - 13452 passengers, 14718 seats, 91.40% load factor

Alaska has scrapped PDX-MSY.

jbpdx wrote:

Alaska has scrapped PDX-MSY.

How can you tell: zeroed out?

LAX772LR wrote:

jbpdx wrote:

Alaska has scrapped PDX-MSY.

How can you tell: zeroed out?

Yep, It's no longer in their schedule.

I can see MX trying MSY-PDX with the A223 a few times a week.

jbs2886 wrote:

SunsetLimited wrote:

I can see MX trying MSY-PDX with the A223 a few times a week.

Speaking of A220s, I’m surprised DL hasn’t put one on SEA-MSY.

DL had flown SEA-MSY before COVID. I believe it was a Saturday-only flight with the A319.

AC4500 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

SunsetLimited wrote:

I can see MX trying MSY-PDX with the A223 a few times a week.

Speaking of A220s, I’m surprised DL hasn’t put one on SEA-MSY.

DL had flown SEA-MSY before COVID. I believe it was a Saturday-only flight with the A319.

Launched February 2018.

SunsetLimited wrote:

I can see MX trying MSY-PDX with the A223 a few times a week.

Agreed.

From this week's board meeting agenda:

Item 20 North Terminal Project $22,865,062 NTE
Change Order #37

Anyone know what this is about? That's a pretty large sum, suggesting a significant addition or modification, unless it is related to the sewer or baggage belt issues or hurricane damage. Would be nice to have the long-awaited bridge to the long-term garage and an AA lounge.

Likely nothing but continued payment of change orders from the construction of the terminal. These could go on for a while.

msycajun wrote:

and an AA lounge.

Doubt this would go toward anything like that.

Also, from what I've heard, AA considered, but doesn't feel that the premium-to-total pax ratio is sufficient.

Sad, and sorta surprising, seeing as (pre-pandemic) OneWorld boasts the largest network carrier, the largest international carrier, and the only alliance with more than two present carriers, in the market/region.

They need to build a large multi-level parking garage on the current surface lot ASAP. It’s getting to the point where every weekend, there’s no parking available at the new terminal, and the economy lot at the old terminal fills to near capacity. I can’t tell you how many people miss their flights because of this.

SunsetLimited wrote:

They need to build a large multi-level parking garage on the current surface lot ASAP. It’s getting to the point where every weekend, there’s no parking available at the new terminal, and the economy lot at the old terminal fills to near capacity. I can’t tell you how many people miss their flights because of this.

Yikes.

I'm struggling to understand how the airport could push 14million pax and not have these issues; but during a lower-pax recovery, it's a problem.

So for clarity, the old Park&Fly and USPark lots are damaged and currently unable to take motorists?

Once they're brought back (assuming that they do come back) would that be sufficient to relieve the issue?

LAX772LR wrote:

SunsetLimited wrote:

They need to build a large multi-level parking garage on the current surface lot ASAP. It’s getting to the point where every weekend, there’s no parking available at the new terminal, and the economy lot at the old terminal fills to near capacity. I can’t tell you how many people miss their flights because of this.

Yikes.

I'm struggling to understand how the airport could push 14million pax and not have these issues; but during a lower-pax recovery, it's a problem.

So for clarity, the old Park&Fly and USPark lots are damaged and currently unable to take motorists?

Once they're brought back (assuming that they do come back) would that be sufficient to relieve the issue?

It would definitely help having those lots on Airline available again. That several hundred parking spots no longer in service.

Totally agree on the need to build a new parking garage though. I always thought it was foolish to not build a third garage there from the start.

A quicker option in the short term would be to build a new employee parking lot on available land by the north terminal (there is a ton of land for an employee lot to the west of the north terminal roadway), and then open the short term garage as an extension of the economy parking. In the long run, all parking should ideally be located near the north terminal and a new CONRAC constructed, but we are years away from that happening.

NolaMD88fan wrote:

Totally agree on the need to build a new parking garage though. I always thought it was foolish to not build a third garage there from the start.

Did they have the funds, considering the overrun on what's already been planned/built?