San Antonio International Airport News & Updates

[AI0120]

https://blog.wandr.me/2021/02/americ...campaign=27481

Probably doesn't mean much, but found an article that says JetBlue considers San Antonio to be on its "shortlist" for expansion.

"Laurence also suggested that the NEA would allow the pair to “work together to have additional relevance in some of the more business-oriented markets in the Midwest, for example, that we have not been able to break into historically.” While he did not name specific cities in the earnings call an internal memo to crewmembers suggests that San Antonio, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Milwaukee are among the markets on the shortlist for the next few years."

Also found it amusing in their picture, the article considers San Antonio to be a Midwest city.

[FightOn!]

They might be talking about taking over AA's JFK-SAT flight.

Originally Posted by AI0120

https://blog.wandr.me/2021/02/americ...campaign=27481

Probably doesn't mean much, but found an article that says JetBlue considers San Antonio to be on its "shortlist" for expansion.

"Laurence also suggested that the NEA would allow the pair to “work together to have additional relevance in some of the more business-oriented markets in the Midwest, for example, that we have not been able to break into historically.” While he did not name specific cities in the earnings call an internal memo to crewmembers suggests that San Antonio, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Milwaukee are among the markets on the shortlist for the next few years."

Also found it amusing in their picture, the article considers San Antonio to be a Midwest city.

[ILUVSAT]

I'm curious of how this will look with the new, post-COVID passenger projections. The FAA will not approve anything based solely on pre-COVID analytics.

What is described above is what it might look like using pre-COVID numbers.

Either way...progress!

[ahealy]

Change is a cooooming!! That's so awesome maybe keep your ears peeled for an int'l EU flight sometime down the line.

[texboy]

Finally the right people are talking serious about this. I fly into terminal A at least a few times a year and its insane how crowded that corridor gets. Way too cramped.

My guess would be that terminal C will get built first, west of the existing B, then A will be demolished and rebuilt. 38-40 total gates will take this airport well into the future.

[babysal]

I love alternative 3

[IMG][/IMG]

[Dan In Real Life]

Originally Posted by babysal

I love alternative 3

Would you be able to post the link for the overall proposal? I'm having a hard time finding it.

[Tornado]

alternative 3 is the best option of those presented seeing as it gets rid of the waste that was terminal B. Sure looks like Terminal A would stay the same width which would be unfortunate seeing as how tight it currently is.

I know it's probably not needed but a new control tower would be great

[texboy]

Alternative 3, hands down. I'm assuming once complete, Concourse C and Concourse B/Terminal would take the majority of flights, and A would be used as somewhat of reliever space while at the same time being upgraded.

[texastarkus]

Originally Posted by texboy

Alternative 3, hands down. I'm assuming once complete, Concourse C and Concourse B/Terminal would take the majority of flights, and A would be used as somewhat of reliever space while at the same time being upgraded.

I agree...number three is the way for us to go but is it too late. Have we sat on the sidelines and let other airports pass up by. These drawings are just proposals and we're years for construction to start and more years for the dust to settle. just my two cents

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by texastarkus

I agree...number three is the way for us to go but is it too late. Have we sat on the sidelines and let other airports pass up by. These drawings are just proposals and we're years for construction to start and more years for the dust to settle. just my two cents

I really don't think so. As San Antonio expands, of course demand will go up--ABIA is building out their 2040 master plan which will also go so far for the next few decades. It is highly unlikely either city will build a smaller regional airport for domestics, so they kind of both need one another to expand in different ways. Just my own two cents.

[DomInSATX]

Originally Posted by texastarkus

I agree...number three is the way for us to go but is it too late. Have we sat on the sidelines and let other airports pass up by. These drawings are just proposals and we're years for construction to start and more years for the dust to settle. just my two cents

I don't think its going to be very long before new construction begins at SAT. The new team of airport administrators has a clear vision and very efficient planning process. Terminal A is our La Guardia and the city is anxious to get rid of it. If anything, with the Routes Americas happening here in 2022 and demand from cargo operators, like Amazon and FedEx, *I would expect a final plan this year and runway expansion happening right after (mid to late 2022 or early 2023).

-Note that the host city for Routes Americas also tends to get a few new flight announcements during the event.

*Also, if airport leaders are expecting widebody aircraft from Europe (Frankfurt and/or London) and Hawaii within the next few years - they would, in theory, need to start construction on Terminal C within the next couple of years since Terminal B has the only wide body capable gate and it lacks customs. If they used Terminal A for Frankfurt, they would have to use the city owned gates and they'd have to shut down the surrounding two gates while the plane unloads/loads and that's not cost effective. This puts pressure on building a new Terminal C sooner rather than later.

*Disclaimer: Just my thoughts, I could be completely wrong on this.

[ILUVSAT]

I agree. Concept #3 is the best (with the central processor area). I do think they need to plan for the 32 narrow body + 3 wide body gate concept and not the 37 narrow body gates. Trans-oceanic flights are not going to be possible with the current runway lengths, however.

With regard to a new tower...yeah, you're right. It's not needed and it will not be approved by the FAA. Austin played with the idea with their approved plan and the FAA vetoed any idea of a new ATC Tower (and they knew that going in).

[Tornado]

What would be reasoning for denying a new tower if taxpayers were willing to foot the bill? Seems rather draconian of the FAA

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by Tornado

What would be reasoning for denying a new tower if taxpayers were willing to foot the bill? Seems rather draconian of the FAA

In simple terms, the FAA reviews and formally approves the following from an airport master plan: forecasts, Selection of critical aircraft and the ALP (airport layout plan). The ALP includes ATC infrastructure. If a new tower is not required, the FAA will more than likely not approve this portion of the plan.

A substantial portion of a master plan's implementation will require a governmental grant to complete (Airport Improvement Plan Grant-AIP). Without the FAA's full approval, the organization attempting to implement a master plan will not qualify to receive federal money - thus, killing most major redevelopment projects as written.

It's not really "draconian." It's the FAA trying not to have airports over build or build unnecessary items/infrastructure. Just wish the rest of the federal government would be a little more frugal with our money!

[texboy]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

It's not really "draconian." It's the FAA trying not to have airports over build or build unnecessary items/infrastructure. Just wish the rest of the federal government would be a little more frugal with our money!

Here.Here.

[Tornado]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

In simple terms, the FAA reviews and formally approves the following from an airport master plan: forecasts, Selection of critical aircraft and the ALP (airport layout plan). The ALP includes ATC infrastructure. If a new tower is not required, the FAA will more than likely not approve this portion of the plan.

A substantial portion of a master plan's implementation will require a governmental grant to complete (Airport Improvement Plan Grant-AIP). Without the FAA's full approval, the organization attempting to implement a master plan will not qualify to receive federal money - thus, killing most major redevelopment projects as written.

It's not really "draconian." It's the FAA trying not to have airports over build or build unnecessary items/infrastructure. Just wish the rest of the federal government would be a little more frugal with our money!

Good insight, thanks!

[FightOn!]

Big news today!

[tysgs]

Originally Posted by FightOn!

Big news today!

What is it?

[satx23]

jetBlue to JFK & BOS!