mattyt36

Your original conclusion: "So, comparatively, the idea of Houston having three commercial airports is not unreasonable, especially considering nobody is talking about tomorrow, but about a minimum of 5-10 years down the road, likely more -- as we approach a population of 9 - 10 million." The "data" clearly show it is as unreasonable as it is reasonable, i.e., they show close to nothing.

It's disingenuous because it implies some sort of "rule" and "relationship" based on arbitrary selection criteria. So Dallas has 2 airports, 1 with about 32,000,000 enplaned passengers, 1 with about 7,500,000. Houston has 2, 1 with about 22,000,000 and 1 with about 6,500,000. Detroit has 2, 1 with about 17,000,000 and 1 (located in another MSA in its own right 85 miles away mind you) with about 400,000. Atlanta by your definition also has 2, 1 with about 50,000,000 and 1 with about 3,000 (in other words ~0.006% of the traffic served by ATL) that doesn't have a Part 139 certificate from the FAA (the same one, mind you, that the CXO guy is talking about obtaining in the article from the OP) and therefore can't accommodate scheduled service on aircraft with more than 9 seats. You really see no need for (one hell of a) big asterisk next to these comparisons? The Atlanta CSA therefore has 95% of the population of the Houston CSA and also has 2 airports. So what, exactly, do we take away from your list? Houston is fine? Houston is underserved? What exactly? I suggest it's a meaningless and hollow comparison.

Actually you can increase LA to 7 as this outfit (no different really than the air service provided from PDK or BFI) flies from Hawthorne. https://www.surfair.com/us/destinations/los-angeles/ The truth of the matter is this isn't service that the "man off the street" would consider commercial, and, by extension, that Hawthorne was a commercial service airport. If that's what CXO's manager is getting at, well, I suppose that's fine but that's not much to write home about.

Alrighty then. Absolutely perfect (!) and totally appropriate comparisons. PDK's air service is on-demand air taxi/public charters, Part 135. PDK does not have a Part 139 certification from the FAA allowing for scheduled operations (neither does CXO). Located in Atlanta MSA. AHN is 85 road miles from ATL and last had service in 2013. (Although it does have a Part 139 certification.) Has its own MSA as defined by OMB with 165,000 residents. HGR is 75 road miles from BWI. Also has its own MSA as defined by OMB with 260,000 residents. FNT is 80 road miles from DTW. Also has its own MSA as defined by OMB with 425,000 residents. BFI is in the same boat as PDK, having service only from Part 135 carriers. Their historical battle to allow the type of service that most people would consider constitutes commercial service is well known: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/business/the-little-airport-that-said-no-to-southwest.html (Although in fairness PAE is about to get scheduled service on AS and UA.) CXO is 35 road miles from IAH. Classified as a principal city in Houston MSA. I'd say by your loose CSA standard you might as well include BPT as an airport serving Houston considering it's 85 miles from IAH, and why not CLL considering it's 90 miles. At the end of the day, what does it matter if they're in the CSA or not? The LAX CSA has 6, BTW--you forgot PSP. Probably because you realized including it wouldn't make much sense? It's really a disingenuous listing.

Go to https://www.fly2houston.com/newsroom/media-kit/traffic-and-statistics/ Divide AA’s passenger traffic on A by the number of gates they lease (I think 5, but maybe 6). Do the same with UA and the gates they lease (4, I believe ... you don’t have to include the A icehouse). Granted, utilization has gone up with the rebanking of schedules, but all of the real capacity on Terminal A is on the UA gates for how they’re utilized at least ... everyone of those gates can accommodate a standard narrow body aircraft (A320/737) with twice the passenger capacity of the aircraft they’re currently accommodating. The terminal itself is very imbalanced between the south and north side because of UA’s underutilization and DL’s much lower gauge. The AA gates are pretty intensively utilized and you can be guaranteed they’d lease 2 more gates if it were a real option and didn’t require splitting their operation ... and most importantly the simple fact that AA, DL, and UA don’t pick fights at each other’s hubs since the last round of mergers for very salient reasons. (If you are really concerned about utilization, calculate the same ratio for Spirit and say with a straight face that UA isn’t squatting on gates. That said, it’s nothing new and is the case at any major connecting hub as the marginal cost of leasing the gates is de minimis compared with the revenue implications of allowing a competitor to build a real foothold.) The federal regulations you refer to are absolutely toothless, although maybe there will be some real challenges in the industry soon thanks to Spirit, Frontier, and JetBlue. It’s a long time overdue. Airport lease terms? Well I suggest you read the HAS leases and tell me exactly what you’re getting at there. You’re also wrong about the A icehouse, that was completely done by CO and was a long-term exclusive lease. Certainly not at the request of HAS. If it was packaged with leases on other gates that was purely for disingenuous optics (but if so Exhibit A that they worked). Not sure the lease is exclusive anymore as I know AA has used it regularly enough before for the early morning LAX flight (but I don’t think they do anymore). That said AA could very well have paid UA and not HAS directly for access to that gate. The B and C leases are a different matter. But UA is paying full freight for those facilities as well, which is more than you can say for the hub airline at many other large connecting hubs.

I think the better question is why do you ask? Building a new terminal is not going to increase demand overnight. Are you asking for the new Terminal D’s design capacity?

10 flights/day to IAH http://www.departedflights.com/HY110184p4.html 15 flights/day to the Clear Lake STOLPort http://www.departedflights.com/HY110184p2.html Unfortunately no contemporary examples for a long list of reasons.

I have no doubt it lost money considering the airfares were the same as they were from IAH, i.e., there was no business case other than to take business from Southwest. It was the easiest way for CO to remain competitive enough to air travelers on the south side after abandoning what was at one time a large enough "focus city" operation at HOU until 1990ish. (Of course it replaced an HOU-IAH route, the Houston Proud Express. And at various times again CO served HOU-IAH, including 737 one-stops to LGA to compete with the AA nonstops.)

Not sure why CSA is a better measure for this than MSA considering Montgomery County is in the MSA. Since when does Atlanta have 3 commercial airports?! Wash-Balto has 4?! Detroit has only had 1 for many years. Seattle is only now about to have 2. That is unless you're counting service by Part 135 carriers, which I'm pretty sure CXO already has. I guess you can say Philly has 3 if you include ACY but that seems like a crazy corollary for Conroe. IAH is just as close to The Woodlands as is CXO, and even in traffic, if IAH is farther, there's no way CXO would offer competitive enough nonstop service and schedules to make the +/- 15 minutes matter. In any case whoever said Allegiant would be the only likely airline is right . . . they USA, 30 miles outside of CLT, which is about as good of a corollary as you can get. Surprised they haven't set up shop at EFD, to tell you the truth. SGR reopening for commercial service would probably have a better business case.

Fantastic idea on the tower! Let's find someone besides Calatrava . . .

What does the I-45 realignment have to do with guest room renovations?

If so, why keep under wraps at the grand unveiling and the initial distribution of the marketing materials? It usually works in the opposite direction.

Page 4 of the PDF DrLan posted mentions nothing specific with regard to the Shops, which is strange when combined with lack of renderings. I would've thought that would be one of the most prominent components given its uniqueness, but maybe they don't see much opportunity there. I can't copy and paste but maybe someone will have better luck than I. Synopsis: -New central plaza and greenspace -Renovation of LBT and 2 HC lobbies -Reclad pedestrian bridges -"Reshaping the retail and dining experience throughout Houston Center" -New shared space design -Conferencing and co-working venues

I must admit I've been surprised by how many people I've seen at Finn Hall after hours.

Anyone else find the renderings a bit uninspiring? Surprised they didn't also release renderings of the public spaces, which is where a lot of money is usually spent in these renovations. They're doing something to the structure connecting the hotel and 3 (?) Allen Center. https://www.chron.com/life/article/Swank-female-bent-C-Baldwin-hotel-debuts-in-13523592.php?ipid=hpctp#photo-16752021

Doubletree to be independent hotel named C Baldwin. Name is weird to me. Not sure if independent means it intends to become independent within a chain grouping like Autograph Collection or Curio or entirely independent. https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2019/01/09/downtown-houston-doubletree-to-become-independent.html?ana=e_ae_set1&s=article_du&ed=2019-01-09&u=0tGNxpvpNFPnDWo9NL1ZKQ09e4f6f2&t=1547072417&j=85953981

Doubletree to be independent hotel named C Baldwin. Name is weird to me. Not sure if independent means it intends to become independent within a chain grouping like Autograph Collection or Curio or entirely independent. https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2019/01/09/downtown-houston-doubletree-to-become-independent.html?ana=e_ae_set1&s=article_du&ed=2019-01-09&u=0tGNxpvpNFPnDWo9NL1ZKQ09e4f6f2&t=1547072417&j=85953981

I’m admittedly no expert in the industry. But I don’t think it’s a question of your or my individual preference, as for every one of you and me there will be just as many examples with other preferences. So if a sizable portion of the market (if not the majority) is people from the suburbs (either visiting Disco Green on the weekend or for some convention), why not give them at least one familiar, affordable, “guaranteed” (yet admittedly ho hum, and more consequentially for this forum, entirely unsexy) option? That really doesn’t exist downtown. I also believe for many a $10 price point for table service makes it more of a memorable “event” than counter service, which is what many people are looking for with their families rather than the “star” quality of the food.

I’m sure this will be unpopular but I think at least one suburban chain restaurant is exactly what is needed at the GRB for the same reason that in Times Square, Fisherman’s Wharf, the Navy Pier, the West End, the Riverwalk, etc, etc you will find an Applebee’s and an Olive Garden. The price point for Grotto and Pappadeaux is simply too high for the families that frequent Discovery Green on the weekend. There needs to be a familiar national brand targeted for $10/person instead of $20+. There are plenty of options for “in-the-know” foodies elsewhere, even in walking distance. The Convention Center restaurants will be successful based on volume. EDIT: I actually agree with Doc Loomy that Torchy’s for McAllister’s is a perfect solution.

Ross you don’t sound like you’re ready to learn as to why decentralization is the solution (obviously it’s the answer because it isn’t not the answer) and instead only want to waste server space. Thanks for letting us all know exactly what kind of person you really are. Matty: “Doc Luminaire, I have a stomachache.” Doc Luminaire: “Well we better remove your small intestine.” M: “Can’t we start with some antibiotics?” DL: “You obviously don’t work in this industry. Let me ask you a simple question: Is a bitter pill hard to swallow?” M: “Before you remove my small intestine can you explain to me why you think it’s the right solution?” DL: “Someone once told me a patient who thinks he’s a doctor has a fool for a patient. Please answer my question. Is a bitter pill hard to swallow? Or do I need to dumb it down? Do you think two wrongs make a right? Once you tell me that, I’ll tell you why I know removing your small intestine will solve the problem. Are you really here to fix your stomachache or waste the time of the entire medical community and space in my file cabinet?” M: “OK Doc maybe I’ll seek a second opinion.” Nurse Houston 19514: “Doctor, I’m still wondering why exactly you are recommending to remove Matty’s small intestine.” DL: “Nurse Houston, can you tell me why that isn’t the right decision? EDIT: I’ve heard another patient got their small intestine removed once.” M: “Get me the hell outta here.” DL: “Thanks for letting everyone know exactly what kind of person you really are.”

Hilarious.

Yeah, that's it exactly . . . 👍

Oh Loomy, bless your heart and those 12-inch stilettos you seem to be standing in. Emotional, eh? Lots of lecturing and, what, 4 posts, yet no substantive rationale given as to why decentralization is an answer for the permitting problem you're concerned with. By any reasonably objective standard, especially 4 posts in with plenty of ignored opportunities for expanding your ideas ("Oh, I mean as part of a comprehensive process redesign," or whatever it means, exactly), parroting and reparroting an empty turn of phrase as a rationale is trite and simplistic. Sports are all about quickness and agility, so maybe we should run your maxim by Jeff Luhnow, Brian Gaine, or Darryl Morey--why the need to fill out the roster? Maybe they should run split squads! (Or, am I wrong, "quicker and more agile when you are small" is a widely recognized maxim solely in the municipal permitting industry?) And no, sir, please do not deign to "dumb it down" for Li'l Ole Me--quite the contrary--I'm asking specifics as to how decentralization would help relieve workload issues caused by high demand attributable to Harvey reconstruction (an entirely believable problem another poster referred to) or "subjectivity" (another problem you have recently introduced). ("Only a fool believes they are the smartest in the room," eh? That sentiment jibes oh-so-well with naked condescension such as "Your line of thinking is not properly grounded for a discussion to even happen"; "are you willing to learn something today"; "or are you here to waste peoples time, and server space," doesn't it? It actually jibes pretty well with your screenname. Someone seems to have an inappropriately elevated opinion of himself. But I'll let you have this one, Loomy . . . it seems to be an issue near and dear to your heart . . . and emotionally so.)

Luminaire, instead of speaking in overly simplistic and trite generalities, why don't you start with explaining how your prescription moving the same people to different offices to perform the same job magically solves the problem simply because small is "quicker and more agile." Are you now saying the problem is with subjectivity? Decentralization seems like a fine solution to address that.

Great platitude that demonstrates no consideration of the specific work being done in this situation. We're talking about relatively rote, "check-the-box" processing of permit applications in accordance with City regulations. I'd say it's a safe bet that processing capacity is pretty close to a linear function of the number of staff.