Austin Executive to get control tower

pburger said:
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that some corporate aircraft cannot operate out of non-towered airports due to either corporate policies or maybe insurance requirements. This may be a factor in the decision to add a tower.
Click to expand...

And one of the aircraft attracted by a tower will buy more fuel than 50 of the little annoying bugsmashers that may be deterred by it.
 
luvflyin said:
Who runs the Tower there?
Click to expand...
An offshoot of the ATSG corporate conglomerate (ABX, ATI, LGSTX, etc.)

Until a few years ago the whole airport was privately owned by Airborne, and then DHL.
 
weilke said:
And one of the aircraft attracted by a tower will buy more fuel than 50 of the little annoying bugsmashers that may be deterred by it.
Click to expand...
And how many gallons will it take to cover the cost of a multi-million dollar tower? The cheapest one I can find cost over $12M. BTW, as pburger said, it's some corporate aircraft that can't come in without a tower. Most of the guys I know flying jets say they have to have "weather on the field" meaning AWOS or ATIS, but a tower is not required.

It's their money, so I'm perfectly happy to let them spend it. I don't think it's necessary, but if I had to go in there, it wouldn't deter me. If it is funded by the FAA, I would call foul. It's not needed.
 
Lowflynjack said:
And how many gallons will it take to cover the cost of a multi-million dollar tower? The cheapest one I can find cost over $12M. BTW, as pburger said, it's some corporate aircraft that can't come in without a tower. Most of the guys I know flying jets say they have to have "weather on the field" meaning AWOS or ATIS, but a tower is not required.

It's their money, so I'm perfectly happy to let them spend it. I don't think it's necessary, but if I had to go in there, it wouldn't deter me. If it is funded by the FAA, I would call foul. It's not needed.
Click to expand...

A low volume contract tower is less than a million a year to operate. Considering the investment the owners have made into the airport, that's not a lot of money.
 
weilke said:
A low volume contract tower is less than a million a year to operate. Considering the investment the owners have made into the airport, that's not a lot of money.
Click to expand...
So $1M to operate each year and at least $12M to build it. I'm just trying to figure out what the benefits are. Are they going to sell that much more fuel? It is a convenient location for some, but honestly I think most corporate planes still go into Bergstram. Maybe it will pay for itself if that the only reason they're not going there.

Then again, he's a multi-millionaire, so what do I know? :)
 
Lowflynjack said:
So $1M to operate each year and at least $12M to build it. I'm just trying to figure out what the benefits are. Are they going to sell that much more fuel? It is a convenient location for some, but honestly I think most corporate planes still go into Bergstram. Maybe it will pay for itself if that the only reason they're not going there.

Then again, he's a multi-millionaire, so what do I know? :)
Click to expand...
This is the tower the same owners built at KTME. Nowhere close to $12M there.

http://www.houstonexecutiveairport.com/tower.htm
 
Lowflynjack said:
So $1M to operate each year and at least $12M to build it. I'm just trying to figure out what the benefits are. Are they going to sell that much more fuel? It is a convenient location for some, but honestly I think most corporate planes still go into Bergstram. Maybe it will pay for itself if that the only reason they're not going there.

Then again, he's a multi-millionaire, so what do I know? :)
Click to expand...

I don't know where you get '12 million dollars' from. There is a document on tower construction projects on the contract tower associations website. The tower in Denton was 1.05m, the one at Dallas Executive 1.4m, the one at Ft Worth Spinks 1.6m Austin is a single runway field, they don't need to put up a 180ft tower like Front-Range (5.7m).

And I was wrong on the cost to operate a tower. In the DOT-OIG report from 2012, the average cost for a contract tower was 560k with 6FTE employees. Some of the low traffic contract towers in the south had 4FTE staff and personnel budgets below 400k. Give it some inflation adjustment and it is still a small number.
 
Lowflynjack said:
LMAO. I seriously don't want any of these perks! I guess I'm just a country boy who likes doing things myself.
Click to expand...

Who doesn't? I fuel my own plane, even if they do bring a truck. I fuel at Llano normally and not there. If you have to land there (KAUS is not an option), and you're paying the parking fee, why would you not have them provide some of the services that other FBOs provide without a parking fee? (i.e. Stinson, Fullerton, Glendale, Ruidoso).
 
I know of another airport I once worked at that built a tower not because of quantity of traffic, but the size of some of the aircraft. They would receive a large cargo aircraft once or twice a month, either military or the AN-124. There had been issues of certain local pilots intentionally cutting off the larger aircraft on final, so the airport put up a tower to alleviate that problem.
 
\
weilke said:
I don't know where you get '12 million dollars' from. There is a document on tower construction projects on the contract tower associations website. The tower in Denton was 1.05m, the one at Dallas Executive 1.4m, the one at Ft Worth Spinks 1.6m Austin is a single runway field, they don't need to put up a 180ft tower like Front-Range (5.7m).
Click to expand...
Could I convince you I meant $1.2M? No? :) Ok, I missed that one by a few million. Just seems like a lot of money for very little gain at a fairly quiet airport. As I said before though, it's their money.
 
Lowflynjack said:
\
Could I convince you I meant $1.2M? No? :) Ok, I missed that one by a few million. Just seems like a lot of money for very little gain at a fairly quiet airport. As I said before though, it's their money.
Click to expand...
Well if it is any comfort, BJC's new tower was about 24 million. I'm not sure if that included gold plated plumbing fixtures. It reportedly did include 6,000 sq ft of office, training, and equipment space. Maybe they are planning to run remote towers out of that space or something. Difficult to imagine they could actually justify the space.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I know of another airport I once worked at that built a tower not because of quantity of traffic, but the size of some of the aircraft. They would receive a large cargo aircraft once or twice a month, either military or the AN-124. There had been issues of certain local pilots intentionally cutting off the larger aircraft on final, so the airport put up a tower to alleviate that problem.
Click to expand...

That sure was an expensive solution that the airport manager could have corrected by a short conversation with his FSDO buddy
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
That sure was an expensive solution that the airport manager could have corrected by a short conversation with his FSDO buddy
Click to expand...

Not when the aircraft operators and their customers made it clear to management and elected officials they wanted a tower. Money speaks.
 
I just got back from a trip to Austin Exec today. They structural steel for the tower is almost complete.
I have a photo if someone can post it for me.
 
Clark1961 said:
Well if it is any comfort, BJC's new tower was about 24 million. I'm not sure if that included gold plated plumbing fixtures. It reportedly did include 6,000 sq ft of office, training, and equipment space. Maybe they are planning to run remote towers out of that space or something. Difficult to imagine they could actually justify the space.
Click to expand...
BJC's tower cost $24 million because:
1) It's 124 ft. tall (due to the size and layout of the airfield)
2) It was built by the FAA (a local government or private company would probably have built tower of similar height for $12 million)

The typical 55-65 ft. control tower needed for an airport like Austin Executive generally costs $3-4 million.
 
This is a bizarre conversation.

Control towers are not always established due to traffic levels. Traffic levels are a criteria for the establishment of federal contract towers, but many of the towers in this discussion are not federal contract towers.

Fueling and FBO services are unaffected by the establishment of a control tower.

Advanced ATC is a non-federal contract tower operator that also runs a control tower operator school in Valdosta, GA. Their acquisition of this control tower will likely boost enrollment and help the program's graduates, who the FAA intentionally sidelines as candidates for federal air traffic control jobs.
 
Lowflynjack said:
So $1M to operate each year and at least $12M to build it. I'm just trying to figure out what the benefits are. Are they going to sell that much more fuel? It is a convenient location for some, but honestly I think most corporate planes still go into Bergstram. Maybe it will pay for itself if that the only reason they're not going there.

Then again, he's a multi-millionaire, so what do I know? :)
Click to expand...
$12 million to build? Where did you get that idea. You can design, build and equip one to contract tower standards for less than $4 million. We just completed one in Destin Fla that will be commissioned in November. With 3 more on the way at other airports.
 
Ken Ibold said:
$12 million to build? Where did you get that idea. You can design, build and equip one to contract tower standards for less than $4 million. We just completed one in Destin Fla that will be commissioned in November. With 3 more on the way at other airports.
Click to expand...
Umm, maybe you missed the post where I said I made a mistake.
 
Ken Ibold said:
$12 million to build? Where did you get that idea. You can design, build and equip one to contract tower standards for less than $4 million. We just completed one in Destin Fla that will be commissioned in November. With 3 more on the way at other airports.
Click to expand...
Where are the other 3 going up?
 
Ken Ibold said:
$12 million to build? Where did you get that idea. You can design, build and equip one to contract tower standards for less than $4 million. We just completed one in Destin Fla that will be commissioned in November. With 3 more on the way at other airports.
Click to expand...
Who is "we?" Are you with Advanced ATC or one of the others like SERCO? What I'm wondering is which of these Towers are FCT's, which of those are FCT's under the cost sharing program, which are contracted directly with a local government agency and which are private. Also, of the local government and private ones, which have accepted Federal Grants and do they use some of that grant money to fund their Towers?
 
luvflyin said:
Who is "we?" Are you with Advanced ATC or one of the others like SERCO? What I'm wondering is which of these Towers are FCT's, which of those are FCT's under the cost sharing program, which are contracted directly with a local government agency and which are private. Also, of the local government and private ones, which have accepted Federal Grants and do they use some of that grant money to fund their Towers?
Click to expand...
I am with RS&H. We are a planning/architecture/engineering firm. We do siting studies, design and construction. Some of our work is for FTCs, and some is in support of airports who want to relocate federal towers. FTCs are eligible projects under AIP, but the dollar limit under AIP generally necessitates other funding. The equipment typically is under reimbursable agreements rather than AIP grants.
 
Advanced ATC is a control tower operator school that is expanding its foothold by operating more towers. Most (if not all) of the ones they currently operate are non-federal contract towers (NFCTs), and I suspect that Austin Exec will also be an NFCT. Airports that apply to receive federal funding to build a tower have to meet a certain cost/benefit ratio criteria before the FAA will agree to allocate funds towards that tower. Most of that ratio is based on traffic count. Airports which lack the traffic but see the benefits of having a control tower will often take the NFCT route. We recently saw this with tower at Houston Executive.
 
Been in there once on what was apparently a busy weekday and it didn't seem to need a tower. What it DOES need is to turn the runway clockwise about 40 or 50 degrees to help with the prevailing crosswind. I came out of there with full tanks and fully loaded in the Taildragger with the normal crosswind there and was in for a challenge. For me it is a Mooney only airport for me.
 
FWIW advanced ATC Began life as a CTO mill in Valdosta GA. They skirted CTI requirements on a technicality during the great controller hiring binge. The closest analogy in the pro pilot world would be pay for right seat time.

Looks like they're expanding..... greeeeat
 
Approach_controller said:
FWIW advanced ATC Began life as a CTO mill in Valdosta GA. They skirted CTI requirements on a technicality during the great controller hiring binge. The closest analogy in the pro pilot world would be pay for right seat time.

Looks like they're expanding..... greeeeat
Click to expand...

Yeah, that doesn't sound good.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Been in there once on what was apparently a busy weekday and it didn't seem to need a tower. What it DOES need is to turn the runway clockwise about 40 or 50 degrees to help with the prevailing crosswind. I came out of there with full tanks and fully loaded in the Taildragger with the normal crosswind there and was in for a challenge. For me it is a Mooney only airport for me.
Click to expand...
It does have a runway into the wind... it's just 1550 x 25! When the airport was Bird's Nest, that was the only runway and it was longer. They needed a long runway and the only way they could get it in was to line it up 13/31.
 
Lowflynjack said:
It does have a runway into the wind... it's just 1550 x 25! When the airport was Bird's Nest, that was the only runway and it was longer. They needed a long runway and the only way they could get it in was to line it up 13/31.
Click to expand...

Their customer, the business jet captain, doesn't care about crosswind.
 
Harold Rutila said:
Airports that apply to receive federal funding to build a tower have to meet a certain cost/benefit ratio criteria before the FAA will agree to allocate funds towards that tower. Most of that ratio is based on traffic count.
Click to expand...
Well, yes and no. A couple years ago the FAA pulled back the C/BR formula they'd been using for years, and replaced it with a "new one" they have not made public. In addition, they disbanded to office airports used to gain entry into the FCT program. So, while Congress told FAA in a reauthorization bill that the FCT program had to continue, they didn't specify that it had to be easy.
 
Was at KEDC this weekend. Control tower looks like a deer stand on the south end (very small). This won't be expensive.
 
hindsight2020 said:
nah, they just charge you 170 dollars and 2 hours labor to put air in one 6x6 de facto bicycle tire, then they play Pontius Pilatus when you dispute the trespass. That's how you know people are merely trying to "tolerate" you. I can count with my fingers, so I can take a hint. Sayonara sucker. Between that and Operation Raining Toolbox, I've lost all couth when it comes to my recreational flying. I didn't get to this hobby for the elitist angle anyways, so more than glad to upset that pretentious orthodoxy with my half painted spam can :D.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you said but I sure like the way you said it! :)

Operation Raining Toolbox?
 
FWIW, KEDC is a no-trainer airport. Touch-n-go's are prohibited which eliminates training. No school on premises either. That explains the "quiet" airport. Though July makes it quiet naturally, not many people willing to fly in 110-degree heat.

Also, KEDC is right under the approach corridor into Bergstrom International. And from talking with Bergstrom controllers, not a month goes by without some anonymous VFR airplane into/outof KEDC causing an RA or at least a CA. So I see why the tower might help there.

One other factor to consider is IFR traffic. While the airport does have a ground CD frequency, it doesn't work most of the time so you can imagine the delays this can cause on OVC days.

While I see a strange push against a tower here, I might be the odd duck in the flock to agree that it would improve safety. Especially given all the yahoos causing trouble out there. I've had a few close calls at EDC in the past. IMHO, a tower could have prevented all of them.

Flame suit on, let the flogging begin, I am assuming the position. :D
 
"No touch & go operations,"?

Last year I was there, and there was a G-650 doing touch and goes. True story.
 
SCCutler said:
"No touch & go operations,"?

Last year I was there, and there was a G-650 doing touch and goes. True story.
Click to expand...

The girls at the desk just held his corporate card so he'd come back and buy gas....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Lowflynjack said:
I'm just trying to figure out what the benefits are. Are they going to sell that much more fuel? It is a convenient location for some, but honestly I think most corporate planes still go into Bergstram. Maybe it will pay for itself if that the only reason they're not going there.

Then again, he's a multi-millionaire, so what do I know? :)
Click to expand...
There's a Concorde engine on display in the lobby, with a several-page writeup from the owner about why/how he acquired it. Basically, it boils down to, "What? They're selling the old Concorde engines? I gotta get me one of them, and I don't care what it costs!"

I'm sure he made his millions through good business decisions...but it's also clear that he's not afraid to spend big money even when there's not an obvious return, just because it's what he wants to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top