I always thought Northwest Mesa would be a good location for the Coyotes. It would be closer to the fanbase while still being central enough for much of the Valley. It isn't too far from the location that is being proposed right now but would be less disruptive to the airport. Considering there are proposals to extend the Tempe Streetcar to Northwest Mesa, it would make sense.

PhilMcCrackin wrote:

I don't know the exact details, but ASU backed out of the plan to build a joint arena, not the Coyotes.

Yes, and with good reason. The Coyotes were pulling the same crap the Cubs did with ASU, so the university saw the writing on the wall and pulled the plug. ASU had an agreement with the Cubs to share their new facility at Sloan Park in Mesa, which was badly needed as Packard Stadium was too small for such a large program. Months before the new complex opened, the Cubs decided that ASU could have zero priority over use of the facility even outside of spring training, nor could they erect any ASU branding at any point — this is despite the fact that the Cubs would have only used the facility for a few weeks in February. ASU was forced to back out due to those unacceptable terms, and took over the old A's stadium at Phoenix Municipal. It actually worked to ASU's benefit, as Phoenix Municipal is closer to campus, more easily accessible, and it's a dedicated stadium. It just required a few million in renovations prior to use.

The Yotes were giving off many of the same signals, and after ASU got burned by the Cubs, they decided to break off the deal and pursue their own project. It would have been unacceptable to construct an arena on university property, yet have unequal usage and branding rights. Now, the tables have clearly turned, as the Coyotes were forced to go to ASU hat in hand, along with having to fund several million dollars in project add-ons for NHL locker rooms and other required facilities...that ASU will get to keep when all is said and done.

I don't fault the Coyotes for wanting to build in Tempe, because it's something they should have done a long time ago. You're right that building in Glendale was a terrible idea, and during the years I lived in the valley, that kept me from attending games more frequently as a resident of the far east valley. The problem is that they went into the previously proposed arena partnership with ASU thinking they had the upper hand, despite the fact that ASU had the land the Yotes needed, as well as the ability to get it done. Anyone familiar with ASU knows that it's a university first and a construction company second. Building an entertainment district on ASU property would have been far enough east so that any FAA concerns would be nonexistent. Unfortunately now, they've opted for a site that the FAA clearly deems to be incompatible land use. It probably doesn't make the project impossible, but it creates an extremely uphill battle that will likely result in dropping the residential aspects of the proposal at the very least, if not an overall scaling down of the entire proposal. These things can get dragged out in court for years, so frankly they're better off moving on to a Plan B, because it's shaping up to be yet another strategic blunder by a Coyotes ownership group.

atcsundevil wrote:

so frankly they're better off moving on to a Plan B, because it's shaping up to be yet another strategic blunder by a Coyotes ownership group.

Question becomes, what is Plan B for them? Ultimately the Coyotes want to be in some sort of entertainment district but the only large enough open land I see nearby that doesn't interfere with airport operations is at Van Buren & Priest (the massive parking lot for Phoenix Municipal) which is owned by City of Phoenix not ASU. Everything else anywhere in northern Tempe is either owned by ASU or interferes with the flight path even more.

910A wrote:

Looks like June 20th is the date...

We are excited to announce our new Terminal 4 eighth concourse will open June 20 with 8 new gates for Southwest Airlines. The concourse will feature a variety of local and national concepts, public art, and more!

https://www.skyharbor.com/.../eighth-co ... terminal-4

[/quote]

Be interesting to see how WN implements the concourse into their operation. They've been using the BHS for about three or four weeks.

alasizon wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

so frankly they're better off moving on to a Plan B, because it's shaping up to be yet another strategic blunder by a Coyotes ownership group.

Question becomes, what is Plan B for them? Ultimately the Coyotes want to be in some sort of entertainment district but the only large enough open land I see nearby that doesn't interfere with airport operations is at Van Buren & Priest (the massive parking lot for Phoenix Municipal) which is owned by City of Phoenix not ASU. Everything else anywhere in northern Tempe is either owned by ASU or interferes with the flight path even more.

910A wrote:

Looks like June 20th is the date...

We are excited to announce our new Terminal 4 eighth concourse will open June 20 with 8 new gates for Southwest Airlines. The concourse will feature a variety of local and national concepts, public art, and more!

https://www.skyharbor.com/.../eighth-co ... terminal-4

Be interesting to see how WN implements the concourse into their operation. They've been using the BHS for about three or four weeks.[/quote]

I'm curious if they will increase utilization of this concourse and de-emphasize S4 (at least until they ramp up operations). It seems that S4 would be the farthest from the BHS and give passengers the worst experience (especially with all of the eateries / lounge in S1).

alasizon wrote:

Question becomes, what is Plan B for them? Ultimately the Coyotes want to be in some sort of entertainment district but the only large enough open land I see nearby that doesn't interfere with airport operations is at Van Buren & Priest (the massive parking lot for Phoenix Municipal) which is owned by City of Phoenix not ASU. Everything else anywhere in northern Tempe is either owned by ASU or interferes with the flight path even more.

I think they should be talking with the tribe about developing a complex either around Casino Arizona or Talking Stick. They've got tons of available land, there are likely some tax incentives, and it could benefit both the team and the tribe in a big way. It's possible they've already floated the idea and the tribe hasn't been interested, but it seems to me that if it presented an opportunity for the tribe they'd consider it. I just think the team needs to drop the idea of building in Tempe, because the only available land is going to pose an issue with the airport. I just don't see it being a viable option. Something Tempe needs to keep in mind in all of this too is that the success of the city is dependent on the success of the airport. Hindering operations or future growth can only hurt themselves. They've acted for years like they don't benefit from PHX (hence all of the noise abatement restrictions), but they indirectly benefit a great deal. Presumably this is at least partly why the TED proposal has somewhat lukewarm support from the city council.

atcsundevil wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Question becomes, what is Plan B for them? Ultimately the Coyotes want to be in some sort of entertainment district but the only large enough open land I see nearby that doesn't interfere with airport operations is at Van Buren & Priest (the massive parking lot for Phoenix Municipal) which is owned by City of Phoenix not ASU. Everything else anywhere in northern Tempe is either owned by ASU or interferes with the flight path even more.

I think they should be talking with the tribe about developing a complex either around Casino Arizona or Talking Stick. They've got tons of available land, there are likely some tax incentives, and it could benefit both the team and the tribe in a big way. It's possible they've already floated the idea and the tribe hasn't been interested, but it seems to me that if it presented an opportunity for the tribe they'd consider it. I just think the team needs to drop the idea of building in Tempe, because the only available land is going to pose an issue with the airport. I just don't see it being a viable option. Something Tempe needs to keep in mind in all of this too is that the success of the city is dependent on the success of the airport. Hindering operations or future growth can only hurt themselves. They've acted for years like they don't benefit from PHX (hence all of the noise abatement restrictions), but they indirectly benefit a great deal. Presumably this is at least partly why the TED proposal has somewhat lukewarm support from the city council.

Problem with Talking Stick is that it isn't central enough of a location and would be quite a drive from the fanbase in parts of the Southeast Valley, especially Gilbert. I think a better location would be NW Mesa.

1337Delta764 wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Question becomes, what is Plan B for them? Ultimately the Coyotes want to be in some sort of entertainment district but the only large enough open land I see nearby that doesn't interfere with airport operations is at Van Buren & Priest (the massive parking lot for Phoenix Municipal) which is owned by City of Phoenix not ASU. Everything else anywhere in northern Tempe is either owned by ASU or interferes with the flight path even more.

I think they should be talking with the tribe about developing a complex either around Casino Arizona or Talking Stick. They've got tons of available land, there are likely some tax incentives, and it could benefit both the team and the tribe in a big way. It's possible they've already floated the idea and the tribe hasn't been interested, but it seems to me that if it presented an opportunity for the tribe they'd consider it. I just think the team needs to drop the idea of building in Tempe, because the only available land is going to pose an issue with the airport. I just don't see it being a viable option. Something Tempe needs to keep in mind in all of this too is that the success of the city is dependent on the success of the airport. Hindering operations or future growth can only hurt themselves. They've acted for years like they don't benefit from PHX (hence all of the noise abatement restrictions), but they indirectly benefit a great deal. Presumably this is at least partly why the TED proposal has somewhat lukewarm support from the city council.

Problem with Talking Stick is that it isn't central enough of a location and would be quite a drive from the fanbase in parts of the Southeast Valley, especially Gilbert. I think a better location would be NW Mesa.

I always thought that the old drive-in theater site was perfect, even before the Glendale fiasco. (Cardinals stadium too). Outside of that tribal location, I don't know how big the old Big Surf site is, but probably not big enough for am "entertainment district". Maybe an arena though.

4holer wrote:

1337Delta764 wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

I always thought that the old drive-in theater site was perfect, even before the Glendale fiasco. (Cardinals stadium too). Outside of that tribal location, I don't know how big the old Big Surf site is, but probably not big enough for am "entertainment district". Maybe an arena though.

I had no idea that Big Surf was gone! So many great memories from the '70s/'80s there. A day trip up to Phoenix from Tucson to go to Big Surf and Tower Records. Those were the days!

atcsundevil wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Question becomes, what is Plan B for them? Ultimately the Coyotes want to be in some sort of entertainment district but the only large enough open land I see nearby that doesn't interfere with airport operations is at Van Buren & Priest (the massive parking lot for Phoenix Municipal) which is owned by City of Phoenix not ASU. Everything else anywhere in northern Tempe is either owned by ASU or interferes with the flight path even more.

I think they should be talking with the tribe about developing a complex either around Casino Arizona or Talking Stick. They've got tons of available land, there are likely some tax incentives, and it could benefit both the team and the tribe in a big way. It's possible they've already floated the idea and the tribe hasn't been interested, but it seems to me that if it presented an opportunity for the tribe they'd consider it. I just think the team needs to drop the idea of building in Tempe, because the only available land is going to pose an issue with the airport. I just don't see it being a viable option. Something Tempe needs to keep in mind in all of this too is that the success of the city is dependent on the success of the airport. Hindering operations or future growth can only hurt themselves. They've acted for years like they don't benefit from PHX (hence all of the noise abatement restrictions), but they indirectly benefit a great deal. Presumably this is at least partly why the TED proposal has somewhat lukewarm support from the city council.

A few years ago there was talk about the Diamondbacks building a new ballpark around Talking Stick but that talk has died down and now most of the talk has a new ballpark downtown with a redevelopment of the Chase Field site.

An idea that just popped into my head for the Coyotes involves redevelopment of the state fairgrounds. The state fair itself has floated the idea the past few years of moving to Wild Horse Pass and the state fairgrounds site is an area that seems perfect for redevelopment.

I understand that the neighborhood isn't currently the greatest but it's close to Encanto park, close to downtown, and the site is fairly accessable to I-10 I-17, and SR 51. The Suns made it work on that site for about 30 years. I'm also curious if, since the state owns the land, the Coyotes might be able to work something out with the state legislature.

Vctony wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

alasizon wrote:

Question becomes, what is Plan B for them? Ultimately the Coyotes want to be in some sort of entertainment district but the only large enough open land I see nearby that doesn't interfere with airport operations is at Van Buren & Priest (the massive parking lot for Phoenix Municipal) which is owned by City of Phoenix not ASU. Everything else anywhere in northern Tempe is either owned by ASU or interferes with the flight path even more.

I think they should be talking with the tribe about developing a complex either around Casino Arizona or Talking Stick. They've got tons of available land, there are likely some tax incentives, and it could benefit both the team and the tribe in a big way. It's possible they've already floated the idea and the tribe hasn't been interested, but it seems to me that if it presented an opportunity for the tribe they'd consider it. I just think the team needs to drop the idea of building in Tempe, because the only available land is going to pose an issue with the airport. I just don't see it being a viable option. Something Tempe needs to keep in mind in all of this too is that the success of the city is dependent on the success of the airport. Hindering operations or future growth can only hurt themselves. They've acted for years like they don't benefit from PHX (hence all of the noise abatement restrictions), but they indirectly benefit a great deal. Presumably this is at least partly why the TED proposal has somewhat lukewarm support from the city council.

A few years ago there was talk about the Diamondbacks building a new ballpark around Talking Stick but that talk has died down and now most of the talk has a new ballpark downtown with a redevelopment of the Chase Field site.

An idea that just popped into my head for the Coyotes involves redevelopment of the state fairgrounds. The state fair itself has floated the idea the past few years of moving to Wild Horse Pass and the state fairgrounds site is an area that seems perfect for redevelopment.

I understand that the neighborhood isn't currently the greatest but it's close to Encanto park, close to downtown, and the site is fairly accessable to I-10 I-17, and SR 51. The Suns made it work on that site for about 30 years. I'm also curious if, since the state owns the land, the Coyotes might be able to work something out with the state legislature.

Remember that most of the Coyotes' fanbase is in the East Valley, which is why the Tempe site is considered desirable. Talking Stick is good for the fanbase in the Northeast Valley, but leaves out a significant portion of the Southeast Valley, particularly in Chandler and Gilbert (especially the latter) which also have a sizeable fanbase. I personally think if Tempe falls through a Northwest Mesa location would be ideal since it is central enough for both the Northeast and Southeast Valley.

1337Delta764 wrote:

Remember that most of the Coyotes' fanbase is in the East Valley, which is why the Tempe site is considered desirable. Talking Stick is good for the fanbase in the Northeast Valley, but leaves out a significant portion of the Southeast Valley, particularly in Chandler and Gilbert (especially the latter) which also have a sizeable fanbase. I personally think if Tempe falls through a Northwest Mesa location would be ideal since it is central enough for both the Northeast and Southeast Valley.

The drive time between Casino Arizona and Talking Stick is literally five minutes. It's not like they're drawing from different catchments. Talking Stick is less than 30 minutes from Gilbert versus 60+ minutes to Gila River, but anything in Tempe or in Mesa on the Red Mountain 202 is only marginally closer. Any arena located on the east side of Phoenix is going to be a better draw for the team regardless of whether its located in Tempe, northwest Mesa, or north Scottsdale. All three of those locations are less than 10 minutes apart and are more than centrally located to be a decent draw for most valley residents.

I was out at Sky Harbor this morning, and took a picture of the new concourse. Looks like it's definitely getting close to being ready to open https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected] ... ed-public/

treebeard787 wrote:

I was out at Sky Harbor this morning, and took a picture of the new concourse. Looks like it's definitely getting close to being ready to open https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected] ... ed-public/

There is a YouTube FO for WN "Flying with Big Ern" and in his latest vid he showed that same view you had and mentioned that he thought it would be first week of June or there abouts. BTW his channel is interesting. He is based in PHX.

treebeard787 wrote:

I was out at Sky Harbor this morning, and took a picture of the new concourse. Looks like it's definitely getting close to being ready to open https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected] ... ed-public/

I believe June 20 is the projected opening date.

media day is 06/17 and first flights 06/20

Hopefully the SkyTrain extension is open by then and the annoying nightly shutdowns will stop.

chrisair wrote:

Hopefully the SkyTrain extension is open by then and the annoying nightly shutdowns will stop.

SkyTrain isn't scheduled to open to the Rental car facility until October/November at the earliest (planned for January but there is a lot of buffer time in there).

Half the nightly shutdowns recently have not only been to complete the testing on the west portions but also to deal with the problematic switches and issues between East Economy and T4 that have been failing at a very high rate (relatively) recently.

1337Delta764 wrote:

Remember that most of the Coyotes' fanbase is in the East Valley, which is why the Tempe site is considered desirable. Talking Stick is good for the fanbase in the Northeast Valley, but leaves out a significant portion of the Southeast Valley, particularly in Chandler and Gilbert (especially the latter) which also have a sizeable fanbase. I personally think if Tempe falls through a Northwest Mesa location would be ideal since it is central enough for both the Northeast and Southeast Valley.[/quote]


The update as presented to the Tempe City Council last week:

https://www.abc15.com/sports/heres-what-the-coyotes-arena-tempe-entertainment-district-could-look-like

I got a great place for the Coyotes to play, San Antonio. They are just a sad organization that grifts as much $$ as they can while putting out a substandard product. Let them be someone else's target.

Nonrevhell wrote:

I got a great place for the Coyotes to play, San Antonio. They are just a sad organization that grifts as much $$ as they can while putting out a substandard product. Let them be someone else's target.

They'd go to Hamilton, Quebec City, Houston, or Kansas City before anywhere else were to be considered. They aren't moving though. The league has invested too much to quit at this point, and allowing them to move would be an even bigger failure for Gary Bettman than the situation already has been. He's not the type of guy to back down.

Tempe is moving forward with discussions, but they're looking at an uphill climb trying to pursue the project as proposed. The FAA has indicated that it will not accept a residential component due to incompatible land use, and the CoP will be compelled to file suit on the government's behalf if requested. I think the Coyotes are being naïve to think that it will be an easy fight, and I think Tempe is being awful trusting of an organization that's spent the better part of two decades leaving Glendale in a lurch. All of that aside, this puts PHX in a bind when it comes to lengthening either of the south runways, and this project would effectively seal the deal on PHX being 100% landlocked.

According to the link below the only component PHX is against is the residential portion. The article has renderings of the project but doesn't show he relationship to PHX. I have been here long enough to remember the massive complaints from homeowners that bought under the Luke AFB flight path. These continue today.
@ atcsundevil I can see why they would like to extend the 7's on the South side is there a pressing need for PHX to expand? I am aware that PHX has had a desire for quite awhile to add another North side runway with Honeywell being the blocker. How much does PHX really need to expand?
https://arizonasports.com/story/3161177 ... nue-talks/
I ask out of a lack of knowledge about any short comings PHX may have.
Cheers!

travaz wrote:

According to the link below the only component PHX is against is the residential portion. The article has renderings of the project but doesn't show he relationship to PHX. I have been here long enough to remember the massive complaints from homeowners that bought under the Luke AFB flight path. These continue today.
@ atcsundevil I can see why they would like to extend the 7's on the South side is there a pressing need for PHX to expand? I am aware that PHX has had a desire for quite awhile to add another North side runway with Honeywell being the blocker. How much does PHX really need to expand?
https://arizonasports.com/story/3161177 ... nue-talks/
I ask out of a lack of knowledge about any short comings PHX may have.
Cheers!

PHX's concerns are effectively limited to the impact this project has on potential future expansion. Their opinion on noise abatement in this situation is essentially irrelevant since it's the FAA that makes the incompatible land use determination. The airport's federal funding is contingent on representing the FAA's interests in court on this matter since the CoP has the legal standing to challenge. The FAA has indicated other concerns with the project, in particular construction, and it will cost the city and airlines millions due to reduced rates (both arrivals and departures) during that period.

As it relates to expansion, keep in mind they need to take a long term view here. Aircraft have changed in massive ways in the near century of operations at Sky Harbor, and they need to plan for what comes in the next century. If this project hinders their ability to lengthen the runways, they may lose a competitive advantage in the future. They have options for more gates and ramp space, but they're realistically out of options for more runway if they can't extend the two south runways, and even that's limited. Arenas and entertainment districts generate revenue, but it's a mere fraction of the revenue (direct and indirect) and jobs produced by an airport. You can build housing and arenas anywhere, but you can't build airports anywhere, and it's never a good idea to leave critical infrastructure without options for the future.

atcsundevil wrote:

travaz wrote:

According to the link below the only component PHX is against is the residential portion. The article has renderings of the project but doesn't show he relationship to PHX. I have been here long enough to remember the massive complaints from homeowners that bought under the Luke AFB flight path. These continue today.
@ atcsundevil I can see why they would like to extend the 7's on the South side is there a pressing need for PHX to expand? I am aware that PHX has had a desire for quite awhile to add another North side runway with Honeywell being the blocker. How much does PHX really need to expand?
https://arizonasports.com/story/3161177 ... nue-talks/
I ask out of a lack of knowledge about any short comings PHX may have.
Cheers!

PHX's concerns are effectively limited to the impact this project has on potential future expansion. Their opinion on noise abatement in this situation is essentially irrelevant since it's the FAA that makes the incompatible land use determination. The airport's federal funding is contingent on representing the FAA's interests in court on this matter since the CoP has the legal standing to challenge. The FAA has indicated other concerns with the project, in particular construction, and it will cost the city and airlines millions due to reduced rates (both arrivals and departures) during that period.

As it relates to expansion, keep in mind they need to take a long term view here. Aircraft have changed in massive ways in the near century of operations at Sky Harbor, and they need to plan for what comes in the next century. If this project hinders their ability to lengthen the runways, they may lose a competitive advantage in the future. They have options for more gates and ramp space, but they're realistically out of options for more runway if they can't extend the two south runways, and even that's limited. Arenas and entertainment districts generate revenue, but it's a mere fraction of the revenue (direct and indirect) and jobs produced by an airport. You can build housing and arenas anywhere, but you can't build airports anywhere, and it's never a good idea to leave critical infrastructure without options for the future.

Thank You. Very well said.

Minor update, it appears the United Airlines Club Lounge is reopening in September between gates E3-5

BA744PHX wrote:

Minor update, it appears the United Airlines Club Lounge is reopening in September between gates E3-5

Excellent. Glad to hear things are moving again with this.

atcsundevil wrote:

BA744PHX wrote:

Minor update, it appears the United Airlines Club Lounge is reopening in September between gates E3-5

Excellent. Glad to hear things are moving again with this.

Nice. PHX will once again have AA, DL, and UA lounges.

Was there an AS club in T2?

I know its been discussed quite a bit, now that S4 is opening, what are the plans with S1? Will all 4 S concourses continue to be WN only? Seems a bit overkill for their operation.

Osubuckeyes wrote:

Was there an AS club in T2?

I know its been discussed quite a bit, now that S4 is opening, what are the plans with S1? Will all 4 S concourses continue to be WN only? Seems a bit overkill for their operation.

The new concourse will be WN only and there will be a Chase Saphire Lounge there, there never was a AS Lounge that I'm aware of or discussed.

Osubuckeyes wrote:

Was there an AS club in T2?

I know its been discussed quite a bit, now that S4 is opening, what are the plans with S1? Will all 4 S concourses continue to be WN only? Seems a bit overkill for their operation.

I remember hearing WN will vacate part of one of the "C" concourses; is that still the case?

1337Delta764 wrote:

Osubuckeyes wrote:

Was there an AS club in T2?

I know its been discussed quite a bit, now that S4 is opening, what are the plans with S1? Will all 4 S concourses continue to be WN only? Seems a bit overkill for their operation.

I remember hearing WN will vacate part of one of the "C" concourses; is that still the case?

No. As far as I know WN will have a lease on all of the "C" and "D" gates giving it 32 total.

There was discussion about AA taking over some of the high "C" gates for American Eagle flights but nothing ever came of that and WN expressed a desire to remain the sole tenant of T4S. If PHX needs more gates there is a fleet of Cobuses sitting on the site of the old Terminal 2 that could be used for remote boarding as there are some hardstands on the site of the old Terminal 2.

Once S1 opens the next major construction project will be a concourse east of T3N that can be accessed by either T3 or T4 (with buses). I'd imagine that the two most likely tenants of this new concourse would either be F9 or AA (for an Eagle's Nest type of operation).

Vctony wrote:

1337Delta764 wrote:

Osubuckeyes wrote:

Was there an AS club in T2?

I know its been discussed quite a bit, now that S4 is opening, what are the plans with S1? Will all 4 S concourses continue to be WN only? Seems a bit overkill for their operation.

I remember hearing WN will vacate part of one of the "C" concourses; is that still the case?

No. As far as I know WN will have a lease on all of the "C" and "D" gates giving it 32 total.

There was discussion about AA taking over some of the high "C" gates for American Eagle flights but nothing ever came of that and WN expressed a desire to remain the sole tenant of T4S. If PHX needs more gates there is a fleet of Cobuses sitting on the site of the old Terminal 2 that could be used for remote boarding as there are some hardstands on the site of the old Terminal 2.

Once S1 opens the next major construction project will be a concourse east of T3N that can be accessed by either T3 or T4 (with buses). I'd imagine that the two most likely tenants of this new concourse would either be F9 or AA (for an Eagle's Nest type of operation).

CoP still wants C13/C17/C19 for common use Canada spill over (with WN having primary domestic use) to reduce the demand on N4 but there is debate about who is going to pay for the facelift that S4 needs (it has the lowest ceilings overall). That being said, CoP is hesitant right now to add any additional common use space to T4 simply because the gate use rules allow any common use carrier to request the space.

T3N expansion was originally supposed to break ground this year but with COVID, the AA C-Point relocation hit the brakes. I see T3N expansion likely being an operation that is T3 carriers for RONs and AA during the day (for Eagle) which is the best use for all the carriers. F9/NK have room during the day to slide some more flights in on existing T3 gates, the problem has always been 2000-0730. Of course, at the rate the current crew situation is going, T3N's expansion doesn't need to be ready for probably two years so the move could start tomorrow and it would be fine.

Osubuckeyes wrote:

Was there an AS club in T2?

I know its been discussed quite a bit, now that S4 is opening, what are the plans with S1? Will all 4 S concourses continue to be WN only? Seems a bit overkill for their operation.

There was not, no. Given their fairly substantial operation at PHX I feel like they could justify it, but even the new concourses may be space limited for additional club space. Even the Delta Sky Club is a bit on the small side, although it's very nicely done. I'll be interested to see what United does with their Club space, both in terms of size and design. It was always nice having the lounge in T2, but it really hadn't been updated much in the past 15 years.

Vctony wrote:

Once S1 opens the next major construction project will be a concourse east of T3N that can be accessed by either T3 or T4 (with buses). I'd imagine that the two most likely tenants of this new concourse would either be F9 or AA (for an Eagle's Nest type of operation).

I'm very curious: why would a concourse east of T3N need to be accessed by buses? It won't be connected to either T3 or T4? If not, well, that's just plain stupid.

cathay747 wrote:

Vctony wrote:

Once S1 opens the next major construction project will be a concourse east of T3N that can be accessed by either T3 or T4 (with buses). I'd imagine that the two most likely tenants of this new concourse would either be F9 or AA (for an Eagle's Nest type of operation).

I'm very curious: why would a concourse east of T3N need to be accessed by buses? It won't be connected to either T3 or T4? If not, well, that's just plain stupid.

From what I understand is that it would be accessible from both T3 & T4 post security.

cathay747 wrote:

Vctony wrote:

Once S1 opens the next major construction project will be a concourse east of T3N that can be accessed by either T3 or T4 (with buses). I'd imagine that the two most likely tenants of this new concourse would either be F9 or AA (for an Eagle's Nest type of operation).

I'm very curious: why would a concourse east of T3N need to be accessed by buses? It won't be connected to either T3 or T4? If not, well, that's just plain stupid.

Connector to T3 should be easy, however connecting to T4 is a much more substantial project. Depending on timeline bad use, it could be bus service from T4 until the walkway is completed.

If it was bus only that, would be pretty darn annoying coming from T3.

Osubuckeyes wrote:

cathay747 wrote:

I'm very curious: why would a concourse east of T3N need to be accessed by buses? It won't be connected to either T3 or T4? If not, well, that's just plain stupid.

Connector to T3 should be easy, however connecting to T4 is a much more substantial project. Depending on timeline bad use, it could be bus service from T4 until the walkway is completed.

If it was bus only that, would be pretty darn annoying coming from T3.

The drawings I've seen shows connectors to both terminals, with the connector to Terminal 4 specifically stated as part of the project. But yes, the only way I can see a connector to Terminal 4 is by tunneling under the taxiways.

cathay747 wrote:

Vctony wrote:

Once S1 opens the next major construction project will be a concourse east of T3N that can be accessed by either T3 or T4 (with buses). I'd imagine that the two most likely tenants of this new concourse would either be F9 or AA (for an Eagle's Nest type of operation).

I'm very curious: why would a concourse east of T3N need to be accessed by buses? It won't be connected to either T3 or T4? If not, well, that's just plain stupid.

Eventually it will have an airside connection to both but a few additional things have to be relocated first, most notably the T3 Annex and approach path for Gate 141 which will be slow as both have to remain open at all times during the process. The concourse is planned to open without the connection first and be bus served for the first few years. The CAMP plan shows it as about a 5 year gap to get the under-taxiway connection to T4 built.

Osubuckeyes wrote:

Was there an AS club in T2?

I know its been discussed quite a bit, now that S4 is opening, what are the plans with S1? Will all 4 S concourses continue to be WN only? Seems a bit overkill for their operation.

Overkill in what way? American’s gate utilization in PHX isn’t significantly higher than WN in PHX.

There’s a double standard sometimes when it comes to how a.netters view WN’s use of gates at its larger stations. Compared to 10-15 years ago, they now have hundreds of larger (175 seat -800/MAX 8) aircraft and more of a hybrid hub and spoke and p2p network model versus purely p2p. So they can’t always average 10 turns per gate like they did 20 years ago (although they do manage to do this in some stations today — barely). Additionally, with the much larger scale and breadth of WN’s network today, having slack in gate availability in larger stations is critical for network recovery during irregular operations. This is more crucial now more than ever.

By the same metric, couldn’t one say that AA has too many gates for the number of daily deparures they operate at PHX (and they’re still wanting more gates there even though they already have more than any other carrier)?

As others have noted, fortunately the city of Phoenix is already addressing the need for additional gates.

The ribbon cutting on the new WN concourse was today. All in all the project is fairly underwhelming and while flights will start using the facilities on Monday the whole job seems incomplete.

1.) The new security lanes in the A and D concourses aren't operational.
2.) Most restaurants / vendors in the new concourse will not be open on Monday. News reports state that the vendors will open in the coming weeks / months.
3.) As has been stated before, WN's gate utilization of its current 24 gates is fairly poor. There really aren't a whole lot of flights between 8 am - 2 pm. 32 gates is going to make the whole of T4S feel like a ghost town much of the day, similar to how T4N feels between AA's major pushes.
4.) Terminal 4 looks like a mess with a really poor mesh up of a number of architectural styles with no unifying theme. The whole terminal needs to undergo a TRIP project (similar to DFW). The baggage claim level and ticketing / check in level look essentially untouched from the early 1990s (except for the terrazzo flooring), the upper concourse (level 3) looks like an early 2000s shopping mall, the original concourses (N1, N2, N3, N4, S3, S4) are really looking tired and the gate hold areas are undersized for the larger aircraft (738, A321, 787, 777) that fly a number of flights. While gate utilization is poor when all of the gates are utilized (during the AA and WN rushes) the gate area quickly overflows to a sea of travelers throughout the concourse. S1 and S2 are going to have more space but they're tucked away in the left corner of the airport and won't do anything for AA travelers and will only be nice for the lucky WN travelers that get to use the facilities. WN travelers stuck in S3 and S4 will get the same underwhelming experience that AA travelers will get.
5. The lack of a moving walkway between the D security checkpoint / exit and S1 as well as the lack of a replacement moving walkway between N1 and the A security checkpoint / exit seems like a major design flaw, especially for connecting passengers. It's a fairly long walk from the D checkpoint to the far S1 gates and especially for passengers connecting from S1 to S3 or S4 there are very long walks involved. I haven't noticed the electric cart running all that often in T4S (at least T4N the electric cart seems more frequent) but it's definitely going to be needed once N1 opens.

Having spent some time in Terminal 3, I have to say that PHX did a great job on it. The facility looks modern and uniform and there seems to be plenty of space for the amount of travelers that the facility holds (especially T3S although T3N shows that improvements can be made to the existing somewhat narrow concourses). T4 will offer travelers a vastly underwhelming experience with glimpses of a modern hallway here or a modern concourse there but overall is stuck in the bland, brutalist late 1980s / early 1990s motif that worked for WN and HP when both were cheap, no frills carriers who flew less passengers on smaller aircraft.

Vctony wrote:

The ribbon cutting on the new WN concourse was today. All in all the project is fairly underwhelming and while flights will start using the facilities on Monday the whole job seems incomplete.

1.) The new security lanes in the A and D concourses aren't operational.
2.) Most restaurants / vendors in the new concourse will not be open on Monday. News reports state that the vendors will open in the coming weeks / months.
3.) As has been stated before, WN's gate utilization of its current 24 gates is fairly poor. There really aren't a whole lot of flights between 8 am - 2 pm. 32 gates is going to make the whole of T4S feel like a ghost town much of the day, similar to how T4N feels between AA's major pushes.
4.) Terminal 4 looks like a mess with a really poor mesh up of a number of architectural styles with no unifying theme. The whole terminal needs to undergo a TRIP project (similar to DFW). The baggage claim level and ticketing / check in level look essentially untouched from the early 1990s (except for the terrazzo flooring), the upper concourse (level 3) looks like an early 2000s shopping mall, the original concourses (N1, N2, N3, N4, S3, S4) are really looking tired and the gate hold areas are undersized for the larger aircraft (738, A321, 787, 777) that fly a number of flights. While gate utilization is poor when all of the gates are utilized (during the AA and WN rushes) the gate area quickly overflows to a sea of travelers throughout the concourse. S1 and S2 are going to have more space but they're tucked away in the left corner of the airport and won't do anything for AA travelers and will only be nice for the lucky WN travelers that get to use the facilities. WN travelers stuck in S3 and S4 will get the same underwhelming experience that AA travelers will get.
5. The lack of a moving walkway between the D security checkpoint / exit and S1 as well as the lack of a replacement moving walkway between N1 and the A security checkpoint / exit seems like a major design flaw, especially for connecting passengers. It's a fairly long walk from the D checkpoint to the far S1 gates and especially for passengers connecting from S1 to S3 or S4 there are very long walks involved. I haven't noticed the electric cart running all that often in T4S (at least T4N the electric cart seems more frequent) but it's definitely going to be needed once N1 opens.

Having spent some time in Terminal 3, I have to say that PHX did a great job on it. The facility looks modern and uniform and there seems to be plenty of space for the amount of travelers that the facility holds (especially T3S although T3N shows that improvements can be made to the existing somewhat narrow concourses). T4 will offer travelers a vastly underwhelming experience with glimpses of a modern hallway here or a modern concourse there but overall is stuck in the bland, brutalist late 1980s / early 1990s motif that worked for WN and HP when both were cheap, no frills carriers who flew less passengers on smaller aircraft.

WN will only be using 4 gates on S1 when it opens - other four will remain closed. In part lack of flights, and supposedly not all the gates can be used simultaneously? If so, shame on WN for not working with CoP to plan better.

The replacement walkway between N1 and the new A-D bridge is out for RFP and should be installed by start of 2023. I get the reason why they didn't put a moving walkway on S1 but it just seems silly.

As far as the TSA lanes go - my understanding is it is a technology backorder delaying the lanes in being rearranged. The new ID stations that were just put in at B are apparently over a year overdue.

alasizon wrote:

[…] supposedly not all the gates can be used simultaneously? If so, shame on WN for not working with CoP to plan better.

That can’t possibly be true.

Hopefully they fixed the air conditioning in the S1/S2 walkway. It was broken and very toasty in there the other evening when I landed.

chrisair wrote:

alasizon wrote:

[…] supposedly not all the gates can be used simultaneously? If so, shame on WN for not working with CoP to plan better.

That can’t possibly be true.

Hopefully they fixed the air conditioning in the S1/S2 walkway. It was broken and very toasty in there the other evening when I landed.

From what I've heard the gates don't meet WN's standards for use from a gate layout perspective.

What is the total gate count at PHX now that T4 is complete? Did the airport ever complete the upgrade to the Customs and Immigration project they started at T4?

alasizon wrote:

chrisair wrote:

alasizon wrote:

[…] supposedly not all the gates can be used simultaneously? If so, shame on WN for not working with CoP to plan better.

That can’t possibly be true.

Hopefully they fixed the air conditioning in the S1/S2 walkway. It was broken and very toasty in there the other evening when I landed.

From what I've heard the gates don't meet WN's standards for use from a gate layout perspective.

I do recall that a few of the really old C gates could only fit -300/500 wing spans simultaneously. That was a few years ago, but I remember seeing big signs on the ramp in front of those gates that said 300/500 ONLY. And we pulled up in a -300.

Looks like Advanced Air will be flying to Gallup daily starting August 1. It's bookable on their website and looks to be year round.

Haven't seen it reported here.

WN732 wrote:

alasizon wrote:

chrisair wrote:

That can’t possibly be true.

Hopefully they fixed the air conditioning in the S1/S2 walkway. It was broken and very toasty in there the other evening when I landed.

From what I've heard the gates don't meet WN's standards for use from a gate layout perspective.

I do recall that a few of the really old C gates could only fit -300/500 wing spans simultaneously. That was a few years ago, but I remember seeing big signs on the ramp in front of those gates that said 300/500 ONLY. And we pulled up in a -300.

Those were jetway limitations mostly (C1, C11, C12) and those limitations have all been lifted.

BangersAndMash wrote:

Looks like Advanced Air will be flying to Gallup daily starting August 1. It's bookable on their website and looks to be year round.

Haven't seen it reported here.

Definitely didn't see that coming. Is there a big enough market to support daily service that isn't already driving to ABQ? I could see maybe enough for 3-4x weekly but daily seems a bit high.

alasizon wrote:

BangersAndMash wrote:

Looks like Advanced Air will be flying to Gallup daily starting August 1. It's bookable on their website and looks to be year round.

Haven't seen it reported here.

Definitely didn't see that coming. Is there a big enough market to support daily service that isn't already driving to ABQ? I could see maybe enough for 3-4x weekly but daily seems a bit high.

Looking a bit deeper into it, they're planning to fly a King Air with 8 seats so should be ok, I guess.

It sounds like there is some local incentive money on the table and there is an agreement to fly it for the next 2 years.

https://www.gallupsun.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16237:service-to-phoenix-to-begin-in-august&catid=150:sun-news&Itemid=600

Should be quite the ride to Gallup in summer thunderstorm season! I am surprised no one has started Winslow. I believe the old Frontier used to stop in Winslow and Gallup on the PHX - DEN milk run.
Link to Frontier Timetable and route map 1955
http://www.airtimes.com/cgat/usb/frontier.htm