SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   San Antonio (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=447)
-   -   SAN ANTONIO | City and Metro Transportation Thread (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=167816)

texboy Jun 17, 2008 6:34 PM

SAN ANTONIO | City and Metro Transportation Thread
 
Since the groundbreaking for Terminal B is tomorrow, I think its time we got a thread dedicated to SAIA.

http://www.ksat.com/news/16624328/detail.html

If you follow the link, theres also a kind of neat video of the two new terminals


New Airport Terminal Construction Slated To Begin


SAN ANTONIO -- Nearly 30 years since the San Antonio International Airport opened its latest terminal, construction workers are expected to break ground Tuesday on its newest.

With final funding approval coming from City Council last week, construction will begin to replace the original airport terminal, which has been active since World War II.

"We've got a lot of years out of it," airport spokesman David Hebert said. "It's been a great building, but it's definitely time to move on."

The first terminal is scheduled to open in 2010 to swap out the current Terminal Two that is expected to provide the same number of gates, but extra amenities for travelers. Terminal C is expected to open by 2012 and would add an expected 11 gates.

"We're still seeing more passengers than ever before," Hebert said. "Let's get two new terminals online, let's get a two-tiered roadway servicing all the terminals and let's get a long-term parking garage."

The additional gates are expected to be enough for at least 15 years, Hebert said, but if demand continues to grow, airport officials already have preliminary plans for Terminal D.

sakyle04 Jun 17, 2008 7:07 PM

Good news. Bring on terminal D.

What would the total number of gates be after A-C are completed?

necropolis Jun 17, 2008 8:05 PM

Well groundbreaking officially happened today!!!

http://www.ksat.com/travelgetaways/16633624/detail.html

I use the airport a decent amount of times per year and I am excited to see Terminal 2's days numbered. I had some friends fly in thru American Airlines once and their first impression of the airport wasn't so good but I was like Terminal 1 is nice. haha can't wait to see the finished product.

Paul in S.A TX Jun 17, 2008 8:55 PM

I think the Airport needs a name. "San Antonio International" is pretty boring.

Paul in S.A TX Jun 17, 2008 9:10 PM

Took this pic with my phone so it' not that great. Enlarged it a bit.

http://i28.tinypic.com/35hlkwk.jpg

sakyle04 Jun 17, 2008 9:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul in S.A TX (Post 3619431)
I think the Airport needs a name. "San Antonio International" is pretty boring.

I like it as is. At least you know where you are when you get there. If we ever have multiple airports, then we can distigiush them with names. Until then, I can do without the Cisneros/Jones/Hardberger International Airport...

Sky harbour/Will Rogers/ OR Tambo... Eh.

Paul in S.A TX Jun 17, 2008 9:23 PM

How about named after San Antonio River architect Robert Hugman. Robert Hugman San Antonio INT'L airport. Since the Riverwalk has played a major role in the progress of San Antonio.

oldmanshirt Jun 17, 2008 9:25 PM

The first time my now wife/then girlfriend flew into SAT from Kansas City was about a year ago at night, and after she spent a few days in the city I took her back to the airport during the day. Her plane was taking off out of terminal 2, and when I stopped the car at the drop off point, she looked around kind of confused and said "where's the terminal?" and I said, "that's the terminal", and she goes "that's it??" She seemed to think that I had somehow tricked her by driving to Mexico and dumping her off at an airport in some little dusty border town :P

In any case, I'm glad SA will finally have 2 modern terminals. I'd expect outsiders' opinions of the city to suddenly undergo a sea-change sometime in 2010 ;)

texboy Jun 17, 2008 11:45 PM

Yea terminal 2 certainly does nothing for the cities image as a modern forward thinking city, its been the workhorse of the airport and it shows badly. Im really keeping my fingers crossed that they do the full 11 gates at terminal C. Itd be great if a discount carrier could start a mini hub at SAIA or even use C as a strictly international terminal.

spursfan Jun 18, 2008 1:05 AM

I think the HEB/at&t/Mother's window tint san antonio international airport has a nice ring to it.

oldmanshirt Jun 18, 2008 1:22 AM

Just please, please, please don't call it the "Howard E. Butt San Antonio Int'l Airport"! I've still never gotten over the fact that the public library in Kerrville is called "Butt-Holdsworth Memorial Library".

Trae Jun 18, 2008 1:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sakyle04 (Post 3619484)
I like it as is. At least you know where you are when you get there. If we ever have multiple airports, then we can distigiush them with names. Until then, I can do without the Cisneros/Jones/Hardberger International Airport...

Sky harbour/Will Rogers/ OR Tambo... Eh.

With Austin close by, I doubt SA gets a second airport in our lifetime. As for a name, you could always put San Antonio in the front.

Schertz1 Jun 18, 2008 2:15 AM

San Antonio already has two airports. They are currently renovating and expanding Stinson Field.

sakyle04 Jun 18, 2008 2:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spursfan (Post 3619957)
I think the HEB/at&t/Mother's window tint san antonio international airport has a nice ring to it.

:haha: :haha: :haha:

"fly into mothers airport and saaaaaaave!!"

KevinFromTexas Jun 18, 2008 2:23 AM

Just imagine if it was the Butt airport though. Pilots would be talking about "flying into Butt". :D

"The Butt Terminal" :no:

Texas Tuff Jun 18, 2008 2:39 AM

Sounds like great news on this airport renovation/expansion, it's long overdue. On the Butt airport thing....anything Butt that!! :haha:

Trae Jun 18, 2008 3:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schertz1 (Post 3620100)
San Antonio already has two airports. They are currently renovating and expanding Stinson Field.

Will it be a full blown airport like SA? I think not.

Schertz1 Jun 18, 2008 4:22 AM

I am not quite sure what a full blown airport is, but Stinson Municipal Airport does have a long range plan to expand with SAT and the South side of San Antonio.

oldmanshirt Jun 18, 2008 4:23 AM

Stinson will function as a reliever airport, which I'd assume entails terminal improvements (which are in the pipeline iirc) and lengthening the runways, which I'm not sure about. But its pretty safe to say it will never become SA's version of Hobby or Love Field.

Trae Jun 18, 2008 5:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schertz1 (Post 3620346)
I am not quite sure what a full blown airport is, but Stinson Municipal Airport does have a long range plan to expand with SAT and the South side of San Antonio.

An example of a full-blown airport would be SAT. Flights cross country and international. I doubt Stinson would become that, especially when SAT is more than enough for SA's metro for now.

hookem Jun 18, 2008 7:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas (Post 3620114)
Just imagine if it was the Butt airport though. Pilots would be talking about "flying into Butt". :D

Or worse... could be a pilot of a cargo plane flying out with a load of primates... (technically plausible, with the hospitals/medical research in SA!)

texboy Jun 18, 2008 9:47 PM

I would Love it if someone could drive by and snaps some shots of this!

ScizzoTX Jun 18, 2008 10:00 PM

^^ I'll be flying into SAT on United tomorrow and will have my camera with me. If I get the chance (and if there is something worth seeing) I'll take some photos and post them here.

STLtoSA Jun 19, 2008 3:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schertz1 (Post 3620346)
I am not quite sure what a full blown airport is, but Stinson Municipal Airport does have a long range plan to expand with SAT and the South side of San Antonio.


Actually Stinsons runways are too short for anything bigger than very small private jets to use. There need to extend the runway somewhere between 300-400' to land medium to large sized private jets. Some land has recently been given to the city but there are a lot of environmental issues as well as rerouting roads, etc. They are trying to get it done. They are under pressure from corporations like Toyota who could benefit from using the airport to fly in and out of.

alexjon Jun 19, 2008 4:30 PM

The commuter rail line will more than likely be re-routed slightly for this purpose, I'm sure

KeepSanAntonioLame Jun 27, 2008 8:08 PM

I doubt stinson will be a commercial airport anytime soon, even with the terminal expansion.

jowens Jun 28, 2008 4:27 AM

I drove down from Austin and picked up passengers from Terminal 2 and brought them back to the airport this past week.

What an aweful experience!

They can't replace that terminal fast enough!

texboy Jun 28, 2008 7:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jowens (Post 3640668)
I drove down from Austin and picked up passengers from Terminal 2 and brought them back to the airport this past week.

What an aweful experience!

They can't replace that terminal fast enough!



Its called construction....when has it ever been easy....get over it.

OfCourse Jun 28, 2008 8:16 AM

Speaking of the airport...

Has anything been done to Terminal 1?

Last time I flew into SAT was in 2002 when I was flying from Harlingen to Los Angeles. The terminal seemed small and outdated (colors, glass, etc) and reminded me of the Golden Girls house.

oldmanshirt Jun 28, 2008 3:30 PM

Terminal 1 isn't that bad. Sure, it isn't huge or flashy, but its efficiently designed and has a respectable amount of retail and food options. If anything, terminal 2 makes it look worse by forcing people to judge it as the "modern" terminal. Having the new terminals will make terminal 1 look better, imo.

Not that it really has anything to do with anything, but when I was a real little kid, I always got the ceiling of terminal 1 confused with the arch at the entrance to SeaWorld. I'm pretty sure the first time my family flew out of terminal 1, I asked my mom if we were at SeaWorld :P

KeepSanAntonioLame Jun 28, 2008 5:02 PM

terminal one is fine. since 2002 they've remodeled the inside, so it's pretty nice.

Schertz1 Jun 28, 2008 7:03 PM

I flew out of SAT this morning; terminal one is nice enough, minus the gate area restrooms. They were not much better than a public park restroom, complete with funky oder, dirty walls, and broken locks.

Trae Jun 28, 2008 9:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schertz1 (Post 3641479)
I flew out of SAT this morning; terminal one is nice enough, minus the gate area restrooms. They were not much better than a public park restroom, complete with funky oder, dirty walls, and broken locks.

Sad. :(

LoneStarMike Jun 29, 2008 7:08 AM

SAT's April 2008 passenger traffic
 
Just a heads up - SAT has now posted their traffic statistics for April, 2008 here.

The text of the release is as follows:

Quote:

San Antonio International Airport Reports Record-Breaking Year-To-Date Passengers Through April 2008

Total year-to-date passengers (2,662,048) through April 2008 increased 5.19% over the same period in 2007. Total year-to-date domestic passengers (2,612,234) increased 5.74%, while total international passengers (49,850) decreased 17.28% when compared to the same period in 2007. Enplanements for April 2008 (348,920) increased 2.9% when compared to April 2007. Total enplaned and deplaned passengers (693,040) for April 2008 increased 3.47% over the same month in 2007.
The actual report goes into more detail and shows passenger counts broken down by airline, etc.

Passenger statistics for January, February and March 2008 can be found here

ScizzoTX Jul 8, 2008 11:14 PM

I flew out of SAT yesterday and took a few pictures of the new terminal construction. They have completely rerouted the road in front of terminal two and set up a makeshift drop-off/pickup point that will serve the airport until construction is finished. The new setup, although temporary, is absolutely terrible. It looks cheap and traffic is a nightmare. Hopefully another change is planned before Thanksgiving and Christmas traffic hits. Of course, this is all growing pains - the new terminal will be a great addition to the airport.

Although terminal 2 is a mess, I found all the terminal 1 improvements to be quite nice. I haven't flown through that terminal in a while and it was nice to see the finished product. Also, as of this week SAT now offers free Wifi. I think Sacramento is the only other airport to do the same.

Anyway, here are the pics, taken from the upper level of terminal 1:

1. The torn up road and the new drop-off/pickup setup I mentioned. Notice the terrible traffic at 2pm on a Monday. The traffic was backed all the way past terminal 1:
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u...n/DSC_0076.jpg

2. Demolishing part of the old terminal 2, and beginning work on the two level road that will eventually connect with the road in front of terminal 1:
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u...n/DSC_0075.jpg

3. Beginning work on the new terminal:
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u...n/DSC_0074.jpg

4.
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u...n/DSC_0073.jpg

oldmanshirt Jul 8, 2008 11:39 PM

Thanks for the pics, schizzo. My wife and I are flying into SAT next weekend, and it was good to get a heads-up on the traffic congestion.

Its going to be so nice once that new terminal (and the two-level roadway) is opened! Finally an SA native won't have to make any apologies for his airport :yes:

ICEVET Jul 18, 2008 1:04 AM

As a native San Antonian, I have to concede that SAT after expansion will be far superior to what we had previously. Having said that, I could also add that I left San Antonio at the age of 17 when I enlisted, and did not return to permanently reside until I retired from government service at 55. During that time, I lived in six states and two foreign countries. I had a chance to see a few airports, both in the U.S. and abroad.

I have mentioned in other forums that I am somewhat dismayed that the new, completed airport will have no freeway egress ramp. In other words, you will not be able to depart the airport via the new, two-level terminal roadway and smoothly transition onto either U.S. 281 or I-410. It is fine that those leaving the central business district via 281 North can transition into the airport terminal areas on a completed off-ramp. But how can it be that an airport in a FAIRLY large metro area, (I use the term cautiously), adjacent to TWO heavily-trafficked freeways, could end up being served by only ONE lousy freeway ramp?

I corresponded to the TXHighwayMan on this point, and he confirmed that there will be no egress ramp from SAT. He stated that there "will be a study" to determine if an egress ramp is really necessary. I could hardly believe it when I read it. Try leaving SAT and getting on 281 North. You have a minimum of about three traffic signals to negotiate, and during rush hour it can take twenty minutes or longer. I regard this as a major deficiency that should have been taken into consideration as part of the airport expansion and planned for. By the time the "study" is finished, the situation (already bad) will have probably evolved into another one of our traffic "laughing stocks".

oldmanshirt Jul 18, 2008 1:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICEVET (Post 3679824)
I have mentioned in other forums that I am somewhat dismayed that the new, completed airport will have no freeway egress ramp. In other words, you will not be able to depart the airport via the new, two-level terminal roadway and smoothly transition onto either U.S. 281 or I-410. It is fine that those leaving the central business district via 281 North can transition into the airport terminal areas on a completed off-ramp. But how can it be that an airport in a FAIRLY large metro area, (I use the term cautiously), adjacent to TWO heavily-trafficked freeways, could end up being served by only ONE lousy freeway ramp?

I corresponded to the TXHighwayMan on this point, and he confirmed that there will be no egress ramp from SAT. He stated that there "will be a study" to determine if an egress ramp is really necessary. I could hardly believe it when I read it. Try leaving SAT and getting on 281 North. You have a minimum of about three traffic signals to negotiate, and during rush hour it can take twenty minutes or longer. I regard this as a major deficiency that should have been taken into consideration as part of the airport expansion and planned for. By the time the "study" is finished, the situation (already bad) will have probably evolved into another one of our traffic "laughing stocks".

I can understand that frustration, and agree that a flyover/direct connect exit makes just as much sense as the existing entrance ramp. However, its in this case that the location of the airport gives SA one of its few advantages when it comes to air travel. In cities like Denver and Houston, it doesn't matter that freeway access is direct; you're still going to end up driving a good 30-45 minutes to get to downtown, even on a good day. In SA, yeah you have to go through a few lights (including the ridiculously long lights at Airport Blvd and 410), but once you get past those, you're home free, as there are ramps going to freeways in every direction that are in close proximity, and you are no farther than 5-8 minutes from most of SA's population and business hubs (downtown, Med Center, Stone Oak, etc). I think this is one case where SAT's convenient location minimizes the inconvenience of not having an egress ramp.

oldmanshirt Jul 19, 2008 3:39 AM

Construction update:
http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/6246/d762ir4.jpg

ICEVET Jul 19, 2008 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldmanshirt (Post 3679934)
I can understand that frustration, and agree that a flyover/direct connect exit makes just as much sense as the existing entrance ramp. However, its in this case that the location of the airport gives SA one of its few advantages when it comes to air travel. In cities like Denver and Houston, it doesn't matter that freeway access is direct; you're still going to end up driving a good 30-45 minutes to get to downtown, even on a good day. In SA, yeah you have to go through a few lights (including the ridiculously long lights at Airport Blvd and 410), but once you get past those, you're home free, as there are ramps going to freeways in every direction that are in close proximity, and you are no farther than 5-8 minutes from most of SA's population and business hubs (downtown, Med Center, Stone Oak, etc). I think this is one case where SAT's convenient location minimizes the inconvenience of not having an egress ramp.

I concede those points as valid; I guess my concern originates from imagining what that scene might be like in the next ten years or so, expecially if Terminal Three buiilds out to its max # of gates and our metro area growth remains steady.

LoneStarMike Aug 10, 2008 5:33 AM

Airport garage opens ahead of schedule, under budget
 
Airport’s parking garage debuts ahead of schedule, under budget
Friday, August 8, 2008
San Antonio Business Journal - by Tamarind Phinisee

Quote:

San Antonio International Airport officials have completed construction of a new 3,000-space parking garage four months ahead of schedule and more than $5 million under budget.

The parking garage had originally been slated for completion in December of this year at a cost of $50.8 million.

However, Mark Webb, aviation director for the city of San Antonio, says through the efforts and cooperation of San Antonio-based based contractor Bartlett Cocke, Detroit-based contractor Walbridge and Kansas City, Mo.-based national transportation infrastructure firm HNTB, the project was completed last month at a final price tag of $45.4 million.

“The new long-term garage is the first of three major projects within the overall expansion program at the airport. To see the first project come in early and under budget gives us an incredible amount of energy as we head into the roadway work and the new terminal facility,” says Webb, who oversees the San Antonio International Airport’s personnel and operations. “It tells us that we’re on the right track and that as we move forward, anything is possible when everyone is working together and focused on the same goals.”

Randy Pawelek, president and CEO of Bartlett Cocke, agrees.

“We’re really excited about the project. Our joint venture with Walbridge out of Detroit and then just the good relationships with the designers, the engineers, the staff at the airport — all working in tandem — produced a good project,” Pawelek says.

Pawelek says when the project was originally put out for pricing, it became clear that it would go over budget. But his company was able to work with the other contractors and design team to redesign the garage, save time and control costs — despite record amounts of rainfall during the third quarter of last year.

The completion of the new parking garage almost doubles the available long-term parking at the airport, increasing it to 6,600 spaces.

Prior to this, the airport had 3,800 long-term parking spaces. Webb says the parking garage allows the airport to better serve its customers needs as well as return revenue back to other airport construction and maintenance projects.

More to come

The new garage is just one of three projects currently underway at the airport as part of its 10-year, $635 million capital improvement project.

Now that the garage has been completed, Webb says the airport will focus on completion of the new roadway and the new terminal — Terminal B.

Terminal B, which replace Terminal Two, will be approximately 223,000 square feet and cost an estimated $134.8 million to develop.

Construction on Terminal B began in June of this year and is expected to be completed in June 2010. Construction is also underway on an expansion of the airport’s two-tier roadway system that currently services only Terminal One. The expansion will extend the roadway to the new Terminal B as well to the future Terminal C — not yet under construction.

The roadway expansion is expected to be completed around February 2010. Costs are estimated at $41.3 million.

The money for the construction costs, says airport spokesman David Hebert, is coming from airport-generated funds.

“None of it involves taxpayer dollars or city of San Antonio funds,” Hebert stresses.

Aside from these projects, more upgrades are on the horizons, including the Terminal C project, which will encompass 176,000 square feet and feature five gates and the capability of expanding to 11 gates. The groundbreaking for Terminal C is planned for 2010 and is set to be completed in 2012. Construction on Terminal C could start earlier that scheduled, however, impacting the completion date.

Webb says travelers will notice daily changes and improvements at the airport as construction on the next two projects moves forward. He asks that travelers be patient with the airport as it continues with its expansion, which will eventually make flying more convenient for passengers.

“Much of what we’ve seen so far has been prep work. Now we’re getting to stage where people will be able to see for themselves exactly what’s being built here at the airport,” he says. “Columns, walls and ceilings are actually going to be taking shape, and the daily change is going to be very dramatic.”
It's not everyday you see projects finished ahead of schedule and under budget. Great news for San Antonio International Airport.

TXlifeguard Aug 10, 2008 9:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike (Post 3725608)
Airport’s parking garage debuts ahead of schedule, under budget
Friday, August 8, 2008
San Antonio Business Journal - by Tamarind Phinisee



It's not everyday you see projects finished ahead of schedule and under budget. Great news for San Antonio International Airport.

I'll be glad to see visible progress made on the new terminal and roadway. The utilities relocation seemed to take two or three years and was hell. Kinda disheartening to have gone through all that thinking it was a significant part of the expansion only to realize this summer they hadn't even broke ground on the terminal expansion yet. But the quick work on the easy job of building the pre-cast garage is somewhat hopeful. Normally the rule of government funded construction its to take the expected construction time, double it and then add 120 days. So this is good news.

LoneStarMike Aug 13, 2008 2:25 AM

Mexican low-cost airline interested in SAT
 
Just saw this regarding Interjet, a Mexican low-fare carrier. Near the bottom of the story it noted:

Quote:

International ambitions taking shape

Last month the airline filed an application seeking permission from US authorities to start services to California and Texas. Interjet wants to start daily flights as soon as permitted from Toluca to Ontario (California) and Houston. Continental already flies between Houston (IAH) and Toluca using 50-seat CRJs.

Once the first two routes have been approved Interjet wants to start daily service from Toluca to San Antonio (from November 2008) followed by double-daily services between Guadalajara and Houston (from June 2009) and between Monterrey and Houston (also from June 2009). The City of Houston and Greater Houston Partnership have already submitted their support for these routes.
http://www.anna.aero/wp-content/uplo...t-take-off.jpg

above image from www.anna.aero

Toluca is near Mexico City.

texboy Aug 13, 2008 1:40 PM

FINALLY! I knew this was going to happen eventually with Austin getting Aerobus. This market needs this and sounds like it will finally get it!

KeepSanAntonioLame Aug 13, 2008 2:37 PM

Woohoo! Toluca!


So SAT international destinations now include

Mexico City
Monterrey
San Luis Potosi
Toluca

TXlifeguard Aug 14, 2008 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KeepSanAntonioLame (Post 3732557)
Woohoo! Toluca!


So SAT international destinations now include

Mexico City
Monterrey
San Luis Potosi
Toluca

Let's not go gettin all giddy and start makin' gate space for 'em just yet.

Article says they 'want to' start service.

And that's if the other route (Houston-Toluca) gets regulatory approval. Then they can pursue a SAT-Toluca route. I would imagine there's some paperwork involved in that route as well. Will they come here eventually? Hope so. But it's premature to say Toluca is a new international destination from SAT. Cause it's not.

Not meaning to go off on ya, but this is a pet peeve of mine (in addition to tools on the internets who like to make up cool-sounding knock-off names for urban neighborhoods/developments that exist only on paper). Follow this process; you skimmed the clip of the article and missed the detail where it said they wanted to come here after and if they get the fed's approval on their Houston route. You subsequently post that we now have a new international destination (which we don't). Others see your post and believe it is true. Two months from now I'm having dinner with friends and they start talking about how cheap the new service to Toluca is and that we should all take a trip. I chime in that said direct service does not exist. They disagree and claim it's a fact because their ex girlfriend's brother offices with a guy who's father-in-law read about it online so it has to be true. Then I'm the a$$hole of the night for starting an argument and bringing everybody down, when all I was trying to do was avoid a fruitless two-hour impromptu vacation planning discussion on a trip we won't take because the inexpensive airline doesn't even serve SA.

It's the same issue seen elsewhere here. Speculation enthusiasm somehow morphs into fact, causes confusion, then arguments ensue. It culminates with somebody making a post about the speculated project's viability in San Antonio anyway, then one of us gets all defensive of San Antonio and makes a derogatory post about that posters 'attacks' on San Antonio, and that poster responds by saying people who post in SA threads are too defensive and claims to speak for all of the other registered posters are allegedly in agreement that we're just not mature in SA threads. The whole ugliness ends with 8 pages of posts comparing census bureau data going back to 1983 on who's MSA is growing faster then some other MSA, with someone usually claiming the data is not correct cause it's off by 0.0031% and Junction/Utopia/Karnes City should/should not have been included. The entirety of it all could be avoided by people not posting speculation or hearsay as fact.

urban_encounter Aug 15, 2008 2:29 AM

Glad to see this project underway. To be honest my entire time living in SA I never flew to/from the old terminal, so i don't really know what it looked like on the inside. But it was obviously dated and had outlived its life in a post 9/11 airline industry where terminals need more room for security and there's a heavy empahsis on retail as an economic generator.

Can't wait to see the fiinished product.

oldmanshirt Aug 15, 2008 3:32 AM

I've used terminal 2 the past couple of times I've flown to/from SA, but I had previously never been in there, not that I could remember anyway. To be honest, its really not as horrible as I had heard, but on the other hand it isn't much better than "adequate". And for folks who are used to that being their first glimpse of SA, I really wouldn't be surprised if the new terminal changes a lot of their basic perceptions about SA all by itself.

LoneStarMike Aug 16, 2008 1:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXlifeguard (Post 3734903)
Let's not go gettin all giddy and start makin' gate space for 'em just yet.

Article says they 'want to' start service.

And that's if the other route (Houston-Toluca) gets regulatory approval. Then they can pursue a SAT-Toluca route. I would imagine there's some paperwork involved in that route as well. Will they come here eventually? Hope so. But it's premature to say Toluca is a new international destination from SAT. Cause it's not.

I do agree that Toluca is not yet a destination for San Antonio, but IMO I think it's a very real possibility and I think you may see it happening sooner rather than later.

The article I posted above is a little misleading (to me anyway) because it makes it sound like Interjet has only applied for two routes (Ontario-Toluca and Houston-Toluca) Having read the article, it left me with the impression that once those routes had been approved, then and only then would Interjet go back and apply for San Antonio-Toluca, Houston-Guadalajara and Houston-Monterey flights.

Having done a little more research, that is not the case.

Interjet has applied for all 5 routes (including San Antonio-Toluca) in their initial filing with the Department of Transportation. The filing was done on June 17.

link to DOT filing

Link to exhibits concerning the DOT filing

(After going to the above links, you can click on the icon to the left of "Views" to view the actual document.)

Fast forward to August 7, 2008. The DOT has given it's tentative approval for Interjet to start these routes.

Link

Quote:

ACCORDINGLY,

1. We grant the request of ABC Aerolineas, S.A. de C.V. d/b/a Interjet for an exemption under 49 U.S.C. §40109 to permit it to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between: 1) Toluca, Mexico, and Ontario, California; 2) Toluca, Mexico, and Houston, Texas; 3) Toluca, Mexico, and San Antonio, Texas; 4) Guadalajara, Mexico, and Houston, Texas; and 5) Monterrey, Mexico, and Houston, Texas;
The only thing I'm not clear on is when the final approval would take place. If you read the DOT's response it notes

7. Our action with respect to this foreign air carrier permit should, unless disapproved by the President of the United States under §41307 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, become effective on the 61st day after its submission for §41307 review, or upon the date of receipt of advice from the President or his designee under Executive Order 12597 and implementing regulations that he or she does not intend to disapprove this portion of the Department’s decision under that section, whichever occurs earlier.

It notes that other parties have until August 28, 2008 to file comments and/or objections. If there are no objections received by August 28, I believe that is when DOT would submit the application for §41307 review and if approved, it would be effective 61 days after that date, which would be around the end of October.

Although Interjet and Viva Aerobus are both ultra-low cost carriers, Interjet's been around a little bit longer. They started operations in December 2005, while Viva Aerobus started operations in November of 2006.

From a customer service standpoint, Interjet appears to be head and shoulders above Viva Aerobus.

Just one example is the fleets used by each carrier.

Viva Aerobus currently has 9 737-300's that have an average age of 21.6 years

Viva Aerobus fleet information

After going to the above link, you see delivery dates from 2006 to 2008, but those are the dates the planes were delivered to Viva Aerobus. If you click on each of the 9 registration numbers you can see when the planes was actually manufactured. They were all built between 1985 and 1988 and most of them came to Viva Aerobus from US Airways.

Compare that to Interjet's fleet They have 13 Airbus A320 jets with an average age of 4.7 years. The oldest one was built in 1999. Six others were built in 2000. These 7 planes were previously owned by other airlines. Of the remaining six aircraft, four were built in 2007, and the last two were built in 2008.

Back in 2005, Interjet signed an agreement with Airbus with 10 firm orders and 10 more options. The first of the firm orders were to be delivered in the second quarter of 2007. These are the six newer aircraft built in 2007 and 2008 and four more remain to be delivered.

Although this promotional video is in Spanish, part of it shows the interiors of Interjet's planes. Looks pretty nice to me.

Another tidbit - Interjet mainly flies out of Toluca, which I believe is about 50 miles from Mexico City. But recently (as in the last two weeks) I've read articles that they now have the right to fly out of Mexico City. Here's one of them.

Interjet Buys Rights To Use Mexico City Airport - Chairman

Quote:

MEXICO CITY -(Dow Jones)- Mexican low-cost airline Interjet has purchased the rights of troubled carrier Aerocalifornia to operate from the Mexico City International Airport, Chairman Miguel Aleman said in a radio interview Thursday.

Federal regulators suspended Aerocalifornia last week after the company failed to meet a deadline to pay 259.6 million pesos ($25.9 million) in fees dating back to 2005.

In an interview with Mexico's Radio Formula, Aleman said Interjet is "making an important effort" - including ordering more planes - to offer service at the Mexico City airport, by far the country's busiest.

"Sometimes problems bring opportunities, so instead of hunkering down until the storm passes we want to stand up to face it," Aleman said, adding that Interjet plans to begin flying out of Mexico City in mid-August.

The airline, like most other low-cost carriers, currently serves Mexico City via the nearby Toluca airport, which charges lower fees. Aleman said Interjet will continue with its operations in Toluca.

Aleman didn't say how much Interjet paid Aerocalifornia for access to Mexico City.
It will be interesting to see how all this works out - even more so considering that Southwest has said in recent articles that they are looking for a Mexican codeshare partner.

jaga185 Aug 16, 2008 3:03 PM

We need a direct flight to Guadalajara, I was there two weeks ago and there were plenty of people connecting to GDL in Monterrey, hopefully InterJet will apply for a flight route.


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.