No. Actually, the airport will not secure enough funds to expand where expansion is not necessary.

Also, why in the heck would you expand to 60 gates when 60 gates will not be needed at SAT for decades (NOTE: "60 gates" was chosen arbitrarily).

Additionally, rents will skyrocket to a point where airlines find it cost prohibitive to continue some routes (and maybe pull out all together). I assure you, if SAT tries to expand beyond what is necessary, the airlines will fight it and more then likely win!

ILUVSAT, please reread my statement... I stated "obviously, not all at once." and yes, there is a report out there stating that the airport can be expanded to somewhere between 58 to 60 gates. In fact, if you look closely at the drawing of the potential expansions, you faintly see planes outlined around the future terminal C and D. Count them. Although not exact, it comes out to somewhere in the mid 50's for total number of gates. I was merely stating that the airport CAN be expanded to that number, and that is not just me taking guesstimates. I would like to note (and not to start an argument) that it seems many times when I post, you come back with some retort that is usually needless. Why? Oddly enough, its usually when I post something that could be or is positive regarding the city of SA. I'm sure you'll post a retort to this. I simply will not respond. Thanks.

Texboy, maybe you should take a closer look and not get so butt hurt... ILUVSAT was not speaking/responding to anything you said. It was a response to a JACKinBeantown post. And, as I read it, his/her comment was in no imaginable way a shot at anything you said in any previous post!

Cool down, please.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter what on OLD master plan once stated. A new plan is needed for SAT.

I'd note that ILUSAT's reply was to JackinBeantown and not you.

That said, I disagree vehemently with what he said. Our roads and highways are woefully behind the times. We, as a city, don't have a good history of building infrastructure to accommodate growth. That's why there is construction on every major artery in and out of SA.

I admit that airports work different than highways, but this history of waiting until "traffic drives it" is not working. We just end up a city constantly catching up.

And seeing as even now, the only answer is adding lanes, with no attention paid to public transport, or even future projections of growth, (how long do we have to see actual growth surpass projections until we learn?), this isn't changing anytime soon.

I fully agree on the master plan. I will cool down when I want. Nowhere in the history of the world has anyone "cooled down" after being told to cool down. And he did reference the gate number from my post.

I think we just have a simple misunderstanding here. I wasn't talking about expanding to all "60 gates". I was just referring to the illustration (albeit 10+ years old) that shows the plan for Terminal C to initially be built almost to the end but not fully.

If building Terminal C fully would bring it to 40 gates (arbitrary), but they didn't build it completely as indicated in the illustration, it would only bring it to 38 gates (again... arbitrary). That's what I was questioning. I wouldn't expect them to even consider building Terminal D until years in the future.

Here's the plan again so you can see what I mean.

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...expansion5.jpg

p.s. - I see that the misunderstanding is my fault for replying to texboy in a way that didn't make it clear that I meant only Terminal C, as I had said in my original post.

So with all that said, does anybody know the answer?

There is a newer master plan than this one.

http://www.sanantonio.gov/Portals/0/...%20Summary.pdf

As you can see on page 28, there is no call anymore for a Terminal D.

This is the master plan that was used to construct the new rental car parking garage. There is no mention in this one for a Terminal D. That doesn't mean that it won't come back in the next master plan.

You can’t blame the city for highway infrastructure because that is managed and operated by the state. The city can only do so much but Rey don’t find, maintain or propose highway infrastructure.

Thanks. It still shows Terminal C as the same level of incomplete as the old one. Interesting... weird.

(edit) On second glance, that's from 2010, and it actually does show the exact same indication of partially completed Terminal C and future Terminal D (as an outline... but it's there on pp. 27 & 33).

SAT May Numbers

Terminal A/C Expansion
 

Since some of you seem to be interested in this sort of thing.

https://webapp1.sanantonio.gov/RFPFi...6290605432.pdf

I actually have it on good authority, and no, I can't say who, that the airport is looking to purchase property to the North and East of the NW-SE runways.

There are also rumors in high places that if they can't make that work, they may build a new airport in New Braunfels. And you guessed it, for the express purpose of accommodating today's larger airplanes, and to acquire more direct flights.

The folks at SAT are well aware of the drain to Austin for cheaper flights, and direct flights.

Thanks! That's very comprehensive.


If they build in New Braunfels they BETTER build a high speed rail to get people there.

That ain't happening! If SA were to build another airport, it's not going to be closer to Austin than it currently is now.

People are driving to Austin now, why not NB?

Take it for what it's worth, but Austin has NO DESIRE to share an airport, so putting one across the street from Bergstrom makes no sense.

San Antonio needs to stop seeing Austin as some door to the big time. They do not see San Antonio that way. We better wake up, and move forward on our own, Austin be damned.

(BTW: New Braunfels is closer to Austin than the current airport.)

And I can say that San Antonio utilities are bending over backward to supply SAT with maps, cost analysis, and any other ways they can help them acquire the property SAT is interested in buying, as they are very concerned with the lost revenue of SAT moving out of the city.

If they are taking it seriously, I will as well.

Lost revenue? I've said it before, but if the airport relocates then the current location would become the single biggest redevelopment project in SA's history. I don't know how much the airport contributes to the tax base, but think of all the stuff that you could fit on that land, in the primest of prime locations, and how much revenue it would bring.

Hey everyone, we dont know who, but this is on good authority, so it must be true!!!

Well, if you're a public utility, then you might want to keep a known revenue source versus speculating on an unknown.

I agree that the amount of land there would be re-purposed, but how long would that take? In the interim, revenue would be lost.