re: Progress of new New Orleans airport

quote:

---

Posted by cahoots online on 1/8/18 at 11:56 am to White Roach quote: If your assumption that all 45 TSA agents would be working the new checkpoint, perhaps your conclusion will be true. More likely, they'll staff the one checkpoInt with 15 agents like they always have and call it a labor "efficiency" as the lines go out into the street. (Probably 25 or 30. No way all 45 man the new checkpoInt.)


I feel like you are misunderstanding what it means to consolidate security checkpoints. It simply means that all passengers will flow through the same corridor rather than having multiple security nodes at different locations.

That doesn't mean you can't create more than one queue depending on how busy the airport is. It just means all of the lines are in the same area, which allows you to make quick adjustments and creates a more cohesive design so that everyone passes through the same concessions area on the other side of security.

TL;DR - You don't need 3 separate checkpoints to have 3 lines This post was edited on 1/8 at 11:57 am

---

I appreciate the well thought out explanation. It wasn't TLDR.

I actually understand the concept of one line breaking out into multiple security stations. The problem, as I see it, will be that the retards who currently staffing checkpoints in the existing terminal will be the same ones staffing the checkpoints in the new terminal.

I had an early flight out of C. There was at least 125 people in line before the checkpoint opened. One lane. After about 10 minutes a 2nd lane opened, but the line was even longer. At this point, at least 4 TSA agents were walking around the crowd telling people to have their boarding passes and IDs ready. THANKS! Here's a brilliant idea ... why don't you four morons go open a third lane? We'll read the multiple signs telling us to have our boarding passes and IDs ready or we'll hear it from the person stopping the line before we actually get them checked.

All that being said, even if the one checkpoInt zips every traveler through security with unprecedented speed and efficiency, it's still no reason to build a new billion dollar terminal.

Love field has one line that splits into like 20 screening points. One of several reasons I prefer DFW.

quote:

---

ATL is almost there for the domestic terminal.

---

Which is why i use the international security checkpoint

Well I don't agree with you, but appreciate the conversation.

quote:

---

I think Love Field has a perfect setup

---

Depends on if you have pre check

Now that I think about it, it may suck. I do have precheck which really sways my opinion on it. I just hate going to DFW and having to pay toll and drive 10 mins to get to the gate itself. Plus its farther away from me. Okay forget my statements, I'm being biased.

quote:

---

Plus its farther away from me

---

I live 10 minutes away from love field and still prefer to go to DFW

It's still going to take a shitload of $12 hot dogs and energy savings to recoup NOLA's "fraction".

The whole project just seems unnecessary and not particularly well thought out. If the city, state and federal governments were all rolling in money, fine. But we're not. The existing terminal has unused capacity. If you want to be efficient, use what you have in a more efficient manner.

Ugh I hate southwest

I avoid it like the plague.

quote:

---

It's still going to take a shitload of $12 hot dogs and energy savings to recoup NOLA's "fraction".

---

Maybe not lucky dogs, but they will be slingin $12 cocktails

quote:

---

The whole project just seems unnecessary and not particularly well thought out. If the city, state and federal governments were all rolling in money, fine. But we're not. The existing terminal has unused capacity. If you want to be efficient, use what you have in a more efficient manner.

---

The airlines have pushed hard for it and they have the most skin in the game. The primary design work was done by Pelli (world class architects). I just think you are underestimating how much a better design can benefit an airport in the long haul. Most projections I've seen show a decrease in landing fees.

quote:

---

The airlines have pushed hard for it and they have the most skin in the game. The primary design work was done by Pelli (world class architects). I just think you are underestimating how much a better design can benefit an airport in the long haul. Most projections I've seen show a decrease in landing fees.

---

So a couple of things. Airport-related charges typically comprise between 2-4% of an airline's total cost of doing business. Airport-related charges include landing fees (assessed on the max landing weight of each landing), terminal use fees, and debt service. There is always an opportunity cost if an airline decides that fees at MSY are really high. How much was that passenger willing to pay? They still need to fly that plane somewhere else... are the alternatives more profitable? maybe, maybe not..

Most U.S. airports (MSY included) operate residual use and lease agreements. Every few years the airlines and airport sit down, agree to the cost centers. Then they agree that when you add up all revenue (parking, taxi/rideshare, landing fees, concessions, nonaeronautical property revenues, etc.) and subtract out the costs of operating the facility, the balance will be paid up by the airlines (if a loss) or disbursed to the airlines (if a surplus). There is no profit that can be culled from the operation. That $12 hot dog is going to defray Southwest's costs.

There are a few reasons why the project, as proposed, could be profitable (nevermind the inevitable cost overruns).

The O&M costs of running the old facility are passed on to the airlines. Despite all of the lipstick on concourses B and C, those are very old facilities and are not cheap to keep up. The new facility will be less expense to maintain for a while.

The majority of the financing is coming from municipal bonds, backed by future airline charges. The airlines had to sign off on the new debt issuance before the airport could go to market (or get the project off the ground).

By colocating everything in a consolidated terminal you get a lot of efficiency. First is a consolidated checkpoint, and NO it will not be understaffed bc TSA wants to cut costs. TSA schedules each checkpoint rather than as an airport with the ability to flex staff. So when demand is low at B but crazy at D today, it takes a manager to physically reassign staff from B to D. By the time that is done the demand may have slacked and moved back to B, or C.

You also get common-use gates, as much as airlines hate them, they drive down costs. Now the airport can schedule airlines on gates based on demand. If Delta isn't using gate 30 between 2pm and 4pm, but Air Canada wants to come in, the airport can put them on gate 30 as long as they push by 3:45pm (15 minutes to clear the stand is common for narrowbody aircraft).

TL;DR? Ask me something.