khowaga wrote:

malev2012 wrote:

Wonder if the opening of the US to vaccinated Europeans means we will finally see LH and BA flights land soon?

I wondered the same thing. I know BA is restarting SAN in mid October.

I see BA (789) and LH (330) come back to AUS on 15 October and 1 November, whoo!

Western727 wrote:

khowaga wrote:

malev2012 wrote:

Wonder if the opening of the US to vaccinated Europeans means we will finally see LH and BA flights land soon?

I wondered the same thing. I know BA is restarting SAN in mid October.

I see BA (789) and LH (330) come back to AUS on 15 October and 1 November, whoo!

Hope they don't get pushed back. You'd have to think bookings in November and December have picked up in last 24 hours.

CarlosSi wrote:

The 789 isn't the biggest jet they've sent here, but at the very least it's a pretty nice ride so I've heard. Best fit for AUS at this point.

WIll BA EVER fly the 350 to AUS?

knope2001 wrote:

Of the 29 Frontier 2018 dumped markets at Austin, 24 are on somebody else's roster now (the green ones), further solidifying the idea it was more about the airline's approach and less about the iintrinsic viability of the city pairs themselves.

Pax/fl ….. Seat/fl .... Load % … Market
157.7 ….. 182.6 ….. 86.4% ….. PHL
157.6 ….. 182.9 ….. 86.1% ….. SEA
151.2 ….. 183.6 ….. 82.4% ….. CLT
147.5 ….. 182.0 ….. 81.0% ….. MKE
142.5 ….. 182.6 ….. 78.0% ….. PDX
142.5 ….. 182.9 ….. 77.9% ….. BUF
125.0 ….. 153.7 ….. 81.3% ….. CLE
118.2 ….. 152.1 ….. 77.7% ….. OMA

I had previously mentioned the possibility of WN adding AUS-CLE/MKE nonstop service with CLE and MKE being two of the top destinations that are no longer served nonstop from AUS.

I had also previously mentioned the possibility of WN re-adding AUS-SEA nonstop service as WN was getting decent load factors on the AUS-SEA route 4 years ago.

WN re-adding AUS-PDX nonstop service is also a possibility as AS is currently the only airline serving PDX nonstop from AUS and as AUS-PDX has had nonstop competition from WN, F9, and SY in the past.

While WN had dropped AUS-PHL nonstop service in March 2010, WN re-adding AUS-PHL nonstop service might be a possibility as there is currently no nonstop competition on the AUS-PHL route. WN had also recently made other adds out of AUS such as AUS-ORD/MIA/OKC that are in competition with AA nonstop routes out of AUS. The PDEW's of AUS-PHL were also higher in 2019 than in 2009 when WN was still operating AUS-PHL nonstop service.

WN adding AUS-BUF/CLT/OMA nonstop service (even if on a less-than-daily basis) might be possibilities as F9 was able to fill flights on these routes 3 years ago along with BUF and OMA no longer having any nonstop service from AUS.

WN adding AUS-BDL nonstop service is also a possibility with BDL being one of the top remaining markets that doesn't currently any nonstop service from AUS.

b777900 wrote:

CarlosSi wrote:

The 789 isn't the biggest jet they've sent here, but at the very least it's a pretty nice ride so I've heard. Best fit for AUS at this point.

WIll BA EVER fly the 350 to AUS?

They had the 351 lined up for earlier planned-but-not-executed resumptions, so I wouldn't be surprised if they upgauge from the 789 to the 351 at some point before potentially upgauging again to the 77E/W down the road. They flew the 744 at one point pre-covid, even.

Western727 wrote:

b777900 wrote:

CarlosSi wrote:

The 789 isn't the biggest jet they've sent here, but at the very least it's a pretty nice ride so I've heard. Best fit for AUS at this point.

WIll BA EVER fly the 350 to AUS?

They had the 351 lined up for earlier planned-but-not-executed resumptions, so I wouldn't be surprised if they upgauge from the 789 to the 351 at some point before potentially upgauging again to the 77E/W down the road. They flew the 744 at one point pre-covid, even.

I had a reservation on the 747 upper deck before all this Covid garbage hit, then was rescheduled on the 351 before that was cancelled. Hopefully something will be flying again by May when I've rebooked our trip for.

jplatts wrote:

knope2001 wrote:

Of the 29 Frontier 2018 dumped markets at Austin, 24 are on somebody else's roster now (the green ones), further solidifying the idea it was more about the airline's approach and less about the iintrinsic viability of the city pairs themselves.

Pax/fl ….. Seat/fl .... Load % … Market
157.7 ….. 182.6 ….. 86.4% ….. PHL
157.6 ….. 182.9 ….. 86.1% ….. SEA
151.2 ….. 183.6 ….. 82.4% ….. CLT
147.5 ….. 182.0 ….. 81.0% ….. MKE
142.5 ….. 182.6 ….. 78.0% ….. PDX
142.5 ….. 182.9 ….. 77.9% ….. BUF
125.0 ….. 153.7 ….. 81.3% ….. CLE
118.2 ….. 152.1 ….. 77.7% ….. OMA

I had previously mentioned the possibility of WN adding AUS-CLE/MKE nonstop service with CLE and MKE being two of the top destinations that are no longer served nonstop from AUS.

I had also previously mentioned the possibility of WN re-adding AUS-SEA nonstop service as WN was getting decent load factors on the AUS-SEA route 4 years ago.

WN re-adding AUS-PDX nonstop service is also a possibility as AS is currently the only airline serving PDX nonstop from AUS and as AUS-PDX has had nonstop competition from WN, F9, and SY in the past.

While WN had dropped AUS-PHL nonstop service in March 2010, WN re-adding AUS-PHL nonstop service might be a possibility as there is currently no nonstop competition on the AUS-PHL route. WN had also recently made other adds out of AUS such as AUS-ORD/MIA/OKC that are in competition with AA nonstop routes out of AUS. The PDEW's of AUS-PHL were also higher in 2019 than in 2009 when WN was still operating AUS-PHL nonstop service.

WN adding AUS-BUF/CLT/OMA nonstop service (even if on a less-than-daily basis) might be possibilities as F9 was able to fill flights on these routes 3 years ago along with BUF and OMA no longer having any nonstop service from AUS.

WN adding AUS-BDL nonstop service is also a possibility with BDL being one of the top remaining markets that doesn't currently any nonstop service from AUS.

I agree that these cities are a possibility down the road, though I have my doubts about SEA with AS & DL on the route as well as WN's limited gate space at SEA which they might prefer to use for other routes and/or frequencies. Granted, as someone who flies to SEA (grew up there) at least once a year, I definitely hope WN reintroduces nonstops to there.

PHL I definitely agree is a viable possibility, ditto with BDL.

Western727 wrote:

khowaga wrote:

I wondered the same thing. I know BA is restarting SAN in mid October.

I see BA (789) and LH (330) come back to AUS on 15 October and 1 November, whoo!

BA confirmed SAN's return time.

They've constantly had AUS, MSY, BNA, etc in the scheds since spring, but keep pushing them back for obvious reasons.

I'd be shocked if any of them come back before the planned (but probably still fleeting) November stateside relaxation on overseas travel.

CarlosSi wrote:

The 789 isn't the biggest jet they've sent here, but at the very least it's a pretty nice ride so I've heard. Best fit for AUS at this point.

Agreed. AUS certainly can't be crying about a larger high-premium 4class aircraft being used as their launch; that's a sign of confidence from BA, IMO.

Both MSY and BNA are scheduled to return with 3class 788.
PIT, YYC, CHS, and PDX are scheduled with..... nothing. Because they've all been dropped.

So AUS better count its blessings.

b777900 wrote:

WIll BA EVER fly the 350 to AUS?

They were scheduled to have it pre-Covid, as the 744s got drawn down (they were previously seasonally swapping 744 with SAN).

Probably won't have it for a while, until longterm demand stabilizes.
Heck, even ORD was scheduled for A35K these last few months, then down to 78X, then 789 as of last week.

knope2001 wrote:

From awhile back when a similar question was posed about AUS-MKE, i pulled some stuff on the F9 at AUS topic. I've updated the list, but as I mentioned before Frontier's experience at AUS isn't especially meaningful given their track record of new city pairs not lasting long.

All 29 of these Frontier Austin markets from 2018 have subsequently been dropped, but that doesn't mean the markets themselves were poor.
Markets in green have someone else flying them nonstop now, white are currently unserved.
These are ranked by passengers per flight for trips operated in 2018.

Pax/fl ….. Seat/fl .... Load % … Market
159.0 ….. 180.3 ….. 88.2% ….. SAN
157.7 ….. 182.6 ….. 86.4% ….. PHL
157.6 ….. 182.9 ….. 86.1% ….. SEA
156.3 ….. 182.6 ….. 85.6% ….. DTW
155.7 ….. 182.6 ….. 85.3% ….. MSP
155.3 ….. 172.2 ….. 90.2% ….. ATL
151.2 ….. 183.6 ….. 82.4% ….. CLT
150.2 ….. 166.3 ….. 90.3% ….. IAD
147.5 ….. 182.0 ….. 81.0% ….. MKE
145.8 ….. 182.7 ….. 79.8% ….. JAX
145.3 ….. 182.2 ….. 79.8% ….. IND
145.2 ….. 177.1 ….. 82.0% ….. ONT
145.0 ….. 180.3 ….. 80.4% ….. MSY
144.3 ….. 183.1 ….. 78.8% ….. SNA
143.8 ….. 174.0 ….. 82.6% ….. SLC
142.5 ….. 182.6 ….. 78.0% ….. PDX
142.5 ….. 182.9 ….. 77.9% ….. BUF
141.7 ….. 182.2 ….. 77.8% ….. CVG
136.9 ….. 163.6 ….. 83.6% ….. SJC
136.9 ….. 176.1 ….. 77.7% ….. RDU
136.5 ….. 184.7 ….. 73.9% ….. SDF
132.5 ….. 182.5 ….. 72.6% ….. RNO
132.0 ….. 182.0 ….. 72.5% ….. CHS
128.0 ….. 182.4 ….. 70.2% ….. ABQ
126.9 ….. 151.2 ….. 84.0% ….. PHX
125.0 ….. 153.7 ….. 81.3% ….. CLE
123.7 ….. 152.3 ….. 81.2% ….. CMH
118.2 ….. 152.1 ….. 77.7% ….. OMA
115.6 ….. 180.9 ….. 63.9% ….. PVD

As always it's important to remember loads do not necessarily equal profits because there's no accounting for yield here. Take them with a grain of salt. But they do show that for the most part the traffic was there to be served. Now because these were all dumped one might think the markets were poor, However 23 were apparently good enough to now support service by somebody else. It wasn't necessarily the markets which were the problem.

I respect your work and the quality of presentation you provide but I think you missed it here. All you have confirmed is:

1. AUS has a travel-ready population ready to fill seats.

2. People like cheap fares.

AA/DL/UA (and WN, AS and B6) can't sell at F9/NK/G4 avg fares and make money - not even close.

F9s growth is going to test the willingess of AA/DL/UA to keep high CASM planes in the market(s). Yields need to be there to support legacy E75/A319 costs. DL could throw A220-300s at it - but it's not clear AUS is the best use for the (presently) few 223s.

MIflyer12 wrote:

knope2001 wrote:

From awhile back when a similar question was posed about AUS-MKE, i pulled some stuff on the F9 at AUS topic. I've updated the list, but as I mentioned before Frontier's experience at AUS isn't especially meaningful given their track record of new city pairs not lasting long.

All 29 of these Frontier Austin markets from 2018 have subsequently been dropped, but that doesn't mean the markets themselves were poor.
Markets in green have someone else flying them nonstop now, white are currently unserved.
These are ranked by passengers per flight for trips operated in 2018.

Pax/fl ….. Seat/fl .... Load % … Market
159.0 ….. 180.3 ….. 88.2% ….. SAN
157.7 ….. 182.6 ….. 86.4% ….. PHL
157.6 ….. 182.9 ….. 86.1% ….. SEA
156.3 ….. 182.6 ….. 85.6% ….. DTW
155.7 ….. 182.6 ….. 85.3% ….. MSP
155.3 ….. 172.2 ….. 90.2% ….. ATL
151.2 ….. 183.6 ….. 82.4% ….. CLT
150.2 ….. 166.3 ….. 90.3% ….. IAD
147.5 ….. 182.0 ….. 81.0% ….. MKE
145.8 ….. 182.7 ….. 79.8% ….. JAX
145.3 ….. 182.2 ….. 79.8% ….. IND
145.2 ….. 177.1 ….. 82.0% ….. ONT
145.0 ….. 180.3 ….. 80.4% ….. MSY
144.3 ….. 183.1 ….. 78.8% ….. SNA
143.8 ….. 174.0 ….. 82.6% ….. SLC
142.5 ….. 182.6 ….. 78.0% ….. PDX
142.5 ….. 182.9 ….. 77.9% ….. BUF
141.7 ….. 182.2 ….. 77.8% ….. CVG
136.9 ….. 163.6 ….. 83.6% ….. SJC
136.9 ….. 176.1 ….. 77.7% ….. RDU
136.5 ….. 184.7 ….. 73.9% ….. SDF
132.5 ….. 182.5 ….. 72.6% ….. RNO
132.0 ….. 182.0 ….. 72.5% ….. CHS
128.0 ….. 182.4 ….. 70.2% ….. ABQ
126.9 ….. 151.2 ….. 84.0% ….. PHX
125.0 ….. 153.7 ….. 81.3% ….. CLE
123.7 ….. 152.3 ….. 81.2% ….. CMH
118.2 ….. 152.1 ….. 77.7% ….. OMA
115.6 ….. 180.9 ….. 63.9% ….. PVD

As always it's important to remember loads do not necessarily equal profits because there's no accounting for yield here. Take them with a grain of salt. But they do show that for the most part the traffic was there to be served. Now because these were all dumped one might think the markets were poor, However 23 were apparently good enough to now support service by somebody else. It wasn't necessarily the markets which were the problem.

I respect your work and the quality of presentation you provide but I think you missed it here. All you have confirmed is:

1. AUS has a travel-ready population ready to fill seats.

2. People like cheap fares.

AA/DL/UA (and WN, AS and B6) can't sell at F9/NK/G4 avg fares and make money - not even close.

F9s growth is going to test the willingess of AA/DL/UA to keep high CASM planes in the market(s). Yields need to be there to support legacy E75/A319 costs. DL could throw A220-300s at it - but it's not clear AUS is the best use for the (presently) few 223s.

And yet here we are:

1. F9 nowhere to be found

2. AA and WN still going strong, thanks for asking

Cheap fares clearly don't tell the whole story, do they.

Pushing forward with the AEDP. Here are a few links from the 9/14 Airport Advisory Commission meeting:

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=367364

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=367365

LAX772LR wrote:

CarlosSi wrote:

The 789 isn't the biggest jet they've sent here, but at the very least it's a pretty nice ride so I've heard. Best fit for AUS at this point.

Agreed. AUS certainly can't be crying about a larger high-premium 4class aircraft being used as their launch; that's a sign of confidence from BA, IMO.

Agreed - I don’t know of anyone who will be crying about “only” having a 789. It’s a great ride, and having BA back is cause for celebration!

Fingers crossed for LH, too, and that KL doesn’t push its start date back again.

MIflyer12 wrote:

knope2001 wrote:

From awhile back when a similar question was posed about AUS-MKE, i pulled some stuff on the F9 at AUS topic. I've updated the list, but as I mentioned before Frontier's experience at AUS isn't especially meaningful given their track record of new city pairs not lasting long.

All 29 of these Frontier Austin markets from 2018 have subsequently been dropped, but that doesn't mean the markets themselves were poor.
Markets in green have someone else flying them nonstop now, white are currently unserved.
These are ranked by passengers per flight for trips operated in 2018.

Pax/fl ….. Seat/fl .... Load % … Market
159.0 ….. 180.3 ….. 88.2% ….. SAN
157.7 ….. 182.6 ….. 86.4% ….. PHL
157.6 ….. 182.9 ….. 86.1% ….. SEA
156.3 ….. 182.6 ….. 85.6% ….. DTW
155.7 ….. 182.6 ….. 85.3% ….. MSP
155.3 ….. 172.2 ….. 90.2% ….. ATL
151.2 ….. 183.6 ….. 82.4% ….. CLT
150.2 ….. 166.3 ….. 90.3% ….. IAD
147.5 ….. 182.0 ….. 81.0% ….. MKE
145.8 ….. 182.7 ….. 79.8% ….. JAX
145.3 ….. 182.2 ….. 79.8% ….. IND
145.2 ….. 177.1 ….. 82.0% ….. ONT
145.0 ….. 180.3 ….. 80.4% ….. MSY
144.3 ….. 183.1 ….. 78.8% ….. SNA
143.8 ….. 174.0 ….. 82.6% ….. SLC
142.5 ….. 182.6 ….. 78.0% ….. PDX
142.5 ….. 182.9 ….. 77.9% ….. BUF
141.7 ….. 182.2 ….. 77.8% ….. CVG
136.9 ….. 163.6 ….. 83.6% ….. SJC
136.9 ….. 176.1 ….. 77.7% ….. RDU
136.5 ….. 184.7 ….. 73.9% ….. SDF
132.5 ….. 182.5 ….. 72.6% ….. RNO
132.0 ….. 182.0 ….. 72.5% ….. CHS
128.0 ….. 182.4 ….. 70.2% ….. ABQ
126.9 ….. 151.2 ….. 84.0% ….. PHX
125.0 ….. 153.7 ….. 81.3% ….. CLE
123.7 ….. 152.3 ….. 81.2% ….. CMH
118.2 ….. 152.1 ….. 77.7% ….. OMA
115.6 ….. 180.9 ….. 63.9% ….. PVD

As always it's important to remember loads do not necessarily equal profits because there's no accounting for yield here. Take them with a grain of salt. But they do show that for the most part the traffic was there to be served. Now because these were all dumped one might think the markets were poor, However 23 were apparently good enough to now support service by somebody else. It wasn't necessarily the markets which were the problem.

I respect your work and the quality of presentation you provide but I think you missed it here. All you have confirmed is:

1. AUS has a travel-ready population ready to fill seats.

2. People like cheap fares.

AA/DL/UA (and WN, AS and B6) can't sell at F9/NK/G4 avg fares and make money - not even close.

F9s growth is going to test the willingess of AA/DL/UA to keep high CASM planes in the market(s). Yields need to be there to support legacy E75/A319 costs. DL could throw A220-300s at it - but it's not clear AUS is the best use for the (presently) few 223s.

I think you're reading too much into what my assertion is here.

1. A number of times when the topic of no nonstop AUS-MKE service came up, somebody chimed in "Frontier tried it but it failed". And that is seen as proof the market isn't substantial enough to support service.

2. My point is to illustrate that Frontier's failure in most of their AUS markets don't really tell us much about the viability of the city pair. As illustration of that point I listed the 29 Frontier markets added in that big Austin push which failed, and that the huge majority support service by somebody else.

3. To show that AUS-MKE wasn't an obvious outlier or simply too small, I listed the onboard pax per departure in ranked order.

4. I also make a point of stating this does not tell us about yield "As always it's important to remember loads do not necessarily equal profits because there's no accounting for yield here."

Noplace am I suggesting this proves AA/DL/UA can make money on AUS-MKE -- these stats don't begin to suggest that one way or another. The point they are making is that you can't simply dismiss the market as not viable because Frontier dumped it.

khowaga wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

CarlosSi wrote:

The 789 isn't the biggest jet they've sent here, but at the very least it's a pretty nice ride so I've heard. Best fit for AUS at this point.

Agreed. AUS certainly can't be crying about a larger high-premium 4class aircraft being used as their launch; that's a sign of confidence from BA, IMO.

Agreed - I don’t know of anyone who will be crying about “only” having a 789. It’s a great ride, and having BA back is cause for celebration!

Fingers crossed for LH, too, and that KL doesn’t push its start date back again.

Hopeful to see LH resume soon. LH reported increased TATL bookings to 17 US destinations, did not name Austin specifically.

For some reason Cleveland always seems to get dropped. I think both Frontier and Allegiant have tried it.

khowaga wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

CarlosSi wrote:

The 789 isn't the biggest jet they've sent here, but at the very least it's a pretty nice ride so I've heard. Best fit for AUS at this point.

Agreed. AUS certainly can't be crying about a larger high-premium 4class aircraft being used as their launch; that's a sign of confidence from BA, IMO.

Agreed - I don’t know of anyone who will be crying about “only” having a 789. It’s a great ride, and having BA back is cause for celebration!

Fingers crossed for LH, too, and that KL doesn’t push its start date back again.

I had my flight instructor complain about BA191 getting switched to a 747 because it was "trash" compared to the 787, from a passenger point of view.

From the air, in the air it was quite a sight... short-lived but was pretty nice to have seen it here in our hometown the number of times I managed to capture it (even seeing it land on 35R (now 36R) right from the GA ramp)). Phew!

I digress, the 787 is a great treat for passengers.

CarlosSi wrote:

I digress, the 787 is a great treat for passengers.

I've flown 190/191 on 787s from AUS to LHR many times, all in business or premium economy. I've glimpsed the steerage class behind that curtain, and it looked like the beach at Dunkirk.

If sadness had a seat assignment, it would be in the aft end of a BA 787.

TexStones wrote:

If sadness had a seat assignment, it would be in the aft end of a BA 787.

Oh no, premium classes too, as BA still retains the incomprehensibly daft policy of forcing even people who pay mid-4 figures and above for a business seat, to fork over an extra $150+ in each direction to pick seats.

I could see that in Coach, and perhaps even on heavily discounted Business-- but (I don't care what your FFs say) it's asinine to ask someone to fork over $5K+ per person, then nickle and dime them just because they'd like to sit next to their traveling companion.

What a stupid and cheapening policy!

LAX772LR wrote:

TexStones wrote:

If sadness had a seat assignment, it would be in the aft end of a BA 787.

Oh no, premium classes too, as BA still retains the incomprehensibly daft policy of forcing even people who pay mid-4 figures and above for a business seat, to fork over an extra $150+ in each direction to pick seats.

I could see that in Coach, and perhaps even on heavily discounted Business-- but (I don't care what your FFs say) it's asinine to ask someone to fork over $5K+ per person, then nickle and dime them just because they'd like to sit next to their traveling companion.

What a stupid and cheapening policy!

This doesn't apply if you have status, which will cover most flyers in business, at least from the UK end.

But I agree, it's pretty mean when you see ticket prices.

https://twitter.com/AUStinAirport/statu ... 01217?s=19

BA returns October 13th, 3x weekly. Hopefully they increase the frequency as demand builds.

TexStones wrote:

CarlosSi wrote:

I digress, the 787 is a great treat for passengers.

I've flown 190/191 on 787s from AUS to LHR many times, all in business or premium economy. I've glimpsed the steerage class behind that curtain, and it looked like the beach at Dunkirk.

If sadness had a seat assignment, it would be in the aft end of a BA 787.

I did economy once, figuring I’d splurge for Y+ on the overnight segment and regular Y on the way back.

I tried to lie back and think of England, but there was nowhere near enough room.

BangersAndMash wrote:

This doesn't apply if you have status, which will cover most flyers in business, at least from the UK end.

Except that BA doesn't solely carry UK O&D, and applying such a ridiculous concept to up to half of your potential catchment-- isn't exactly the most logical business plan, particularly when almost nobody else of similar stature does such a thing.

I get that it originated during the days of BA's frantic scrambling to find ways to fight off LoCos.
But I'm truly confounded as to how this policy still exists, on an airline that attempts to pass itself off as "premium."

There's a lot of chatter in the commercial real estate world that someone has bought 9000 acres near Jarrell. And some have alluded that it could possibly be Disney. IF and I mean IF that were true, our Airport is going to start feeling really small if we end up getting a theme park.

LAX772LR wrote:

But I'm truly confounded as to how this policy still exists, on an airline that attempts to pass itself off as "premium."

Hear, hear.

WN732 wrote:

There's a lot of chatter in the commercial real estate world that someone has bought 9000 acres near Jarrell. And some have alluded that it could possibly be Disney. IF and I mean IF that were true, our Airport is going to start feeling really small if we end up getting a theme park.

Oh lawd. The only thing Sun City (half of which is in Jarrell ISD) needs is to get even more overpriced for where it is in WillCo than it is now…

WN732 wrote:

There's a lot of chatter in the commercial real estate world that someone has bought 9000 acres near Jarrell. And some have alluded that it could possibly be Disney. IF and I mean IF that were true, our Airport is going to start feeling really small if we end up getting a theme park.

Why would Disney want to build another park, especially right now?

Runway765 wrote:

WN732 wrote:

There's a lot of chatter in the commercial real estate world that someone has bought 9000 acres near Jarrell. And some have alluded that it could possibly be Disney. IF and I mean IF that were true, our Airport is going to start feeling really small if we end up getting a theme park.

Why would Disney want to build another park, especially right now?

They plan years in advance so if this was truly Disney chances are they won’t even open a park tel 2030 at least

Wneast wrote:

Runway765 wrote:

WN732 wrote:

There's a lot of chatter in the commercial real estate world that someone has bought 9000 acres near Jarrell. And some have alluded that it could possibly be Disney. IF and I mean IF that were true, our Airport is going to start feeling really small if we end up getting a theme park.

Why would Disney want to build another park, especially right now?

They plan years in advance so if this was truly Disney chances are they won’t even open a park tel 2030 at least

I highly doubt Disney will ever build a third resort in the US. If they wanted to do a Texas resort (as has been rumored at various times over the decades), they would’ve done it by now. That is just speculation.

Maybe Samsung is buying another plot for leverage in getting their tax breaks?

t18c97 wrote:

Maybe Samsung is buying another plot for leverage in getting their tax breaks?

They just confirmed their new plant in Taylor a few weeks ago.

Wacko55 wrote:

Pushing forward with the AEDP. Here are a few links from the 9/14 Airport Advisory Commission meeting:

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=367364

Amusing that in one of the renderings, AUS appears to be an AF hub.

WN732 wrote:

There's a lot of chatter in the commercial real estate world that someone has bought 9000 acres near Jarrell. And some have alluded that it could possibly be Disney. IF and I mean IF that were true, our Airport is going to start feeling really small if we end up getting a theme park.

That far north, I'd expect GRK to get a lot of the service destined for a hypothetical Texas Disney.

LAX772LR wrote:

BangersAndMash wrote:

This doesn't apply if you have status, which will cover most flyers in business, at least from the UK end.

Except that BA doesn't solely carry UK O&D, and applying such a ridiculous concept to up to half of your potential catchment-- isn't exactly the most logical business plan, particularly when almost nobody else of similar stature does such a thing.

I get that it originated during the days of BA's frantic scrambling to find ways to fight off LoCos.
But I'm truly confounded as to how this policy still exists, on an airline that attempts to pass itself off as "premium."

Said seat costs was the primary driver behind my family's recent decision to instead fly nonstop IAH-DXB on EK for an upcoming November trip, rather than fly BA direct from AUS with their shockingly high seat assignment cost. What really got me was that for my family of 4's seat assignment cost across 4 flights (AUS-LHR-DXB roundtrip) it would've cost slightly more than a single EK ticket from IAH at the time. And of course EK's Y...is actually premium vs. BA's.

Of course, the drawback is that we have to drive to/from IAH...but we decided that the nonstop and superior Y outweighed connecting in LHR and BA's Y, on top of paying almost $2,000 more bottom line.

EDIT: forgot to add that EK's seat assignment cost was $100 roundtrip per pax...for preferred (not Y+) seating. It was $66 roundtrip for all other seats, mainly in the aft section of the 77L. That BA wanted more per segment for half-as-long flights...felt like a big rip-off.

Western727 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

BangersAndMash wrote:

This doesn't apply if you have status, which will cover most flyers in business, at least from the UK end.

Except that BA doesn't solely carry UK O&D, and applying such a ridiculous concept to up to half of your potential catchment-- isn't exactly the most logical business plan, particularly when almost nobody else of similar stature does such a thing.

I get that it originated during the days of BA's frantic scrambling to find ways to fight off LoCos.
But I'm truly confounded as to how this policy still exists, on an airline that attempts to pass itself off as "premium."

Said seat costs was the primary driver behind my family's recent decision to instead fly nonstop IAH-DXB on EK for an upcoming November trip, rather than fly BA direct from AUS with their shockingly high seat assignment cost. What really got me was that for my family of 4's seat assignment cost across 4 flights (AUS-LHR-DXB roundtrip) it would've cost slightly more than a single EK ticket from IAH at the time. And of course EK's Y...is actually premium vs. BA's.

Of course, the drawback is that we have to drive to/from IAH...but we decided that the nonstop and superior Y outweighed connecting in LHR and BA's Y, on top of paying almost $2,000 more bottom line.

Exactly. On my trip last week (originally booked MSY-LHR-CAI-LHR-LAX), BA wanted an extra ~$600 **per person** for roundtrip seat assignments, after we'd already paid thousands each!!!

Thanks to Covid (MSY-LHR not yet having resumed) and a few schedule changes, the trip became MSY-ORD-LHR-CAI-DOH-LAX, with the latter being my first time on QR (with the amazing Q-Suites!) and the seat assignment costs way down.

It's such an insult, when I could have far better carriers for the same price, and the only reason I'd chosen BA in the first place (nonstop MSY-LHR on the outbound), they didn't even provide!

Western727 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

https://www.aviationpros.com/airports/news/21237017/san-antonio-airports-recovery-could-be-slowed-by-airlines-preference-for-flights-from-austin

"San Antonio Airport's Recovery Could be Slowed by Airlines' Preference for Flights From Austin"

"Airlines are adding flights out of Austin at the expense of San Antonio," said Austin Horowitz, aviation consultant with ICF."

Airlines don't offer many explanations for such decisions, but consultants say demographic realities such as San Antonio's high poverty rate play a role. Horowitz said airlines see Austin as a faster-growing and more lucrative market — and figure San Antonio residents will make the 70-mile drive if they want more flight choices.

Aviation consultant Henry Harteveldt summed up Austin's position this way: "It's the story of Cinderella at the ball."

Additional quote: "On an average day this month, passengers will have a choice of 89 departures out of San Antonio. At Austin's airport, they'll have their pick of 205."

Wow. A bit shocking for this AUS resident, though not too surprising. I think I wasn't expecting more than 2x, but something along the lines of 1.5x.

Yet SAT is the largest city in Texas.

dc10lover wrote:

Western727 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

https://www.aviationpros.com/airports/news/21237017/san-antonio-airports-recovery-could-be-slowed-by-airlines-preference-for-flights-from-austin

"San Antonio Airport's Recovery Could be Slowed by Airlines' Preference for Flights From Austin"

"Airlines are adding flights out of Austin at the expense of San Antonio," said Austin Horowitz, aviation consultant with ICF."

Airlines don't offer many explanations for such decisions, but consultants say demographic realities such as San Antonio's high poverty rate play a role. Horowitz said airlines see Austin as a faster-growing and more lucrative market — and figure San Antonio residents will make the 70-mile drive if they want more flight choices.

Aviation consultant Henry Harteveldt summed up Austin's position this way: "It's the story of Cinderella at the ball."

Additional quote: "On an average day this month, passengers will have a choice of 89 departures out of San Antonio. At Austin's airport, they'll have their pick of 205."

Wow. A bit shocking for this AUS resident, though not too surprising. I think I wasn't expecting more than 2x, but something along the lines of 1.5x.

Yet SAT is the largest city in Texas.

Not to nitpick but SAT is actually 2nd largest at 505 square miles, while Houston is tops at 669 square miles. Austin is a lowly #6 at 272 square miles. What I found interesting is that CRP is number 3! Dallas and then Ft Worth follow, before Austin at #6 and El Paso at #7.

Western727 wrote:

Not to nitpick but SAT is actually 2nd largest at 505 square miles, while Houston is tops at 669 square miles. Austin is a lowly #6 at 272 square miles. What I found interesting is that CRP is number 3! Dallas and then Ft Worth follow, before Austin at #6 and El Paso at #7.

I would imagine the poster you quoted was referring to population, though it's also incorrect that SAT is the largest city in that sense. Houston has ~800,000 more people than San Antonio. Of course, metro area is what we should really look at for airport service, in which case San Antonio drops to number 3, with DFW leading the way at 7.5M and Houston close behind at 7.1M. San Antonio falls at 2.6M, just a bit ahead of the purpose of this thread, which is Austin at 2.2M. In that light, namely, very similar populations, and given the tech industry offices in the AUS area it's not really surprising that AUS has more flights to more destinations than San Antonio.

LH issued press release that TATL bookings have tripled since the announcement of the end of the travel ban: https://www.lufthansagroup.com/en/newsr ... oming.html

Wonder if they will give clarity on AUS-FRA soon?

malev2012 wrote:

LH issued press release that TATL bookings have tripled since the announcement of the end of the travel ban: https://www.lufthansagroup.com/en/newsr ... oming.html

Wonder if they will give clarity on AUS-FRA soon?

Even if demand recovers, do they have enough aircraft to go around? They did retire a significant chunk of their longhaul fleet.

CPS001 wrote:

malev2012 wrote:

LH issued press release that TATL bookings have tripled since the announcement of the end of the travel ban: https://www.lufthansagroup.com/en/newsr ... oming.html

Wonder if they will give clarity on AUS-FRA soon?

Even if demand recovers, do they have enough aircraft to go around? They did retire a significant chunk of their longhaul fleet.

I can't answer the longhaul fleet question, but I just did a search for AUS-FRA using random dates starting on the earlier-announced resumption of 1 November....and I wasn't able to find any flights.

Western727 wrote:

CPS001 wrote:

malev2012 wrote:

LH issued press release that TATL bookings have tripled since the announcement of the end of the travel ban: https://www.lufthansagroup.com/en/newsr ... oming.html

Wonder if they will give clarity on AUS-FRA soon?

Even if demand recovers, do they have enough aircraft to go around? They did retire a significant chunk of their longhaul fleet.

I can't answer the longhaul fleet question, but I just did a search for AUS-FRA using random dates starting on the earlier-announced resumption of 1 November....and I wasn't able to find any flights.

It's been pushed back to spring 2022. They could change their mind, of course, but I'd say it's unlikely. AUS is strategic for BA, not so much for LH.

BangersAndMash wrote:

Western727 wrote:

CPS001 wrote:

Even if demand recovers, do they have enough aircraft to go around? They did retire a significant chunk of their longhaul fleet.

I can't answer the longhaul fleet question, but I just did a search for AUS-FRA using random dates starting on the earlier-announced resumption of 1 November....and I wasn't able to find any flights.

It's been pushed back to spring 2022. They could change their mind, of course, but I'd say it's unlikely. AUS is strategic for BA, not so much for LH.

LH also tends to be more conservative about new markets, and they’ve been in AUS for far less time.

BA is only resuming at 3x/week - how fast that changes will be something to keep an eye on as a gauge for TATL demand right now.

We’re booked on BA190 for a 5/9/22 (Monday) flight so hope that schedule expansion holds.

I watched a steady stream of large cabin private jets into KEDC tonight and wondered what was up before realizing it was probably related to ACL. I checked Flightaware but only saw the normal GA traffic. I imagine those flights I saw were probably blocked from tracking. Is there another (free) tracking site that might show more movements?

dfw88 wrote:

Western727 wrote:

Not to nitpick but SAT is actually 2nd largest at 505 square miles, while Houston is tops at 669 square miles. Austin is a lowly #6 at 272 square miles. What I found interesting is that CRP is number 3! Dallas and then Ft Worth follow, before Austin at #6 and El Paso at #7.

I would imagine the poster you quoted was referring to population, though it's also incorrect that SAT is the largest city in that sense. Houston has ~800,000 more people than San Antonio. Of course, metro area is what we should really look at for airport service, in which case San Antonio drops to number 3, with DFW leading the way at 7.5M and Houston close behind at 7.1M. San Antonio falls at 2.6M, just a bit ahead of the purpose of this thread, which is Austin at 2.2M. In that light, namely, very similar populations, and given the tech industry offices in the AUS area it's not really surprising that AUS has more flights to more destinations than San Antonio.

To finish your quote… and a better more capable airport with better logistics and planning.

khowaga wrote:

BangersAndMash wrote:

Western727 wrote:

I can't answer the longhaul fleet question, but I just did a search for AUS-FRA using random dates starting on the earlier-announced resumption of 1 November....and I wasn't able to find any flights.

It's been pushed back to spring 2022. They could change their mind, of course, but I'd say it's unlikely. AUS is strategic for BA, not so much for LH.

LH also tends to be more conservative about new markets, and they’ve been in AUS for far less time.

BA is only resuming at 3x/week - how fast that changes will be something to keep an eye on as a gauge for TATL demand right now.

I'm expecting BA to ramp up quickly to daily once the restrictions are lifted.

Prices for flights to the US on BA have shot up since the announcement so they're clearly selling well.

khowaga wrote:

BangersAndMash wrote:

Western727 wrote:

I can't answer the longhaul fleet question, but I just did a search for AUS-FRA using random dates starting on the earlier-announced resumption of 1 November....and I wasn't able to find any flights.

It's been pushed back to spring 2022. They could change their mind, of course, but I'd say it's unlikely. AUS is strategic for BA, not so much for LH.

LH also tends to be more conservative about new markets, and they’ve been in AUS for far less time.

BA is only resuming at 3x/week - how fast that changes will be something to keep an eye on as a gauge for TATL demand right now.

Its still on the schedule 3x/week - Sunday, Wednesday and Friday starting December 5th, of course it very likely could be pushed back.

malev2012 wrote:

khowaga wrote:

BangersAndMash wrote:

It's been pushed back to spring 2022. They could change their mind, of course, but I'd say it's unlikely. AUS is strategic for BA, not so much for LH.

LH also tends to be more conservative about new markets, and they’ve been in AUS for far less time.

BA is only resuming at 3x/week - how fast that changes will be something to keep an eye on as a gauge for TATL demand right now.

Its still on the schedule 3x/week - Sunday, Wednesday and Friday starting December 5th, of course it very likely could be pushed back.

BA announced last week they’re resuming service as of October 13.

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

khowaga wrote:

malev2012 wrote:

khowaga wrote:

LH also tends to be more conservative about new markets, and they’ve been in AUS for far less time.

BA is only resuming at 3x/week - how fast that changes will be something to keep an eye on as a gauge for TATL demand right now.

Its still on the schedule 3x/week - Sunday, Wednesday and Friday starting December 5th, of course it very likely could be pushed back.

BA announced last week they’re resuming service as of October 13.

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

I am talking LH flight.

At least BA officially confirmed that service will begin later this month. LH just postpones the service every month when they roll the schedule over. I guess that means they haven't given up on AUS yet, but it's a double edged sword as many wouldn't commit to booking the nonstop if there's a risk that it won't operate.

malev2012 wrote:

khowaga wrote:

BangersAndMash wrote:

It's been pushed back to spring 2022. They could change their mind, of course, but I'd say it's unlikely. AUS is strategic for BA, not so much for LH.

LH also tends to be more conservative about new markets, and they’ve been in AUS for far less time.

BA is only resuming at 3x/week - how fast that changes will be something to keep an eye on as a gauge for TATL demand right now.

Its still on the schedule 3x/week - Sunday, Wednesday and Friday starting December 5th, of course it very likely could be pushed back.

At the moment, it's bookable from December 8th, 1x weekly. Going to 3x weekly from January 17th to the end of the schedule.

Although BA 190 is a 789 it looks like they're not selling First for now (seats show as blocked Club World). Also showing a change to the 351 on Feb 1 although this is presumably just a placeholder.

slowrambler wrote:

Although BA 190 is a 789 it looks like they're not selling First for now (seats show as blocked Club World). Also showing a change to the 351 on Feb 1 although this is presumably just a placeholder.

I thought they were restarting AUS with the 788, not the 789?