HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > San Antonio

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1201  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2018, 6:20 PM
ILUVSAT's Avatar
ILUVSAT ILUVSAT is offline
May the Schwartz be w/ U!
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: S.A. | Nashville
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown View Post
It seems like the cost-effective thing would be to build the whole thing at once. Otherwise you'd have a whole mess of stuff to deal with when it came time to expand it a few years later, not to mention the inconvenience to travelers waiting for their plane in a messy, noisy, under-construction terminal.
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!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1202  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2018, 1:25 AM
texboy texboy is offline
constructor extrodinaire!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILUVSAT View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1203  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2018, 3:50 AM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 2,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by texboy View Post
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.
__________________
AUSTIN (City): 964,254 +22.00% - '10-'18 | AUSTIN MSA (5 counties): 2,168,316 +26.34% - '10-'18
SAN ANTONIO (City): 1,532,233 +15.43% - '10-'18 | SAN ANTONIO MSA (8 counties): 2,518,036 +17.53% - '10-'18
AUS-SAT "CSA" (13 counties): 4,686,352 +21.45% - '10-'18 | *SRC: US Census*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1204  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2018, 3:58 AM
Restless 1 Restless 1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by texboy View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1205  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2018, 2:30 PM
texboy texboy is offline
constructor extrodinaire!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoot View Post
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 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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1206  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2018, 3:10 PM
JACKinBeantown's Avatar
JACKinBeantown JACKinBeantown is offline
JACKinBeantown
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 7,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILUVSAT View Post
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!
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.



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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1207  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2018, 7:01 PM
JRG1974 JRG1974 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 58
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1208  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2018, 9:08 PM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is offline
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless 1 View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1209  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2018, 11:28 PM
JACKinBeantown's Avatar
JACKinBeantown JACKinBeantown is offline
JACKinBeantown
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 7,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRG1974 View Post
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.
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).

Last edited by JACKinBeantown; Jun 8, 2018 at 3:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1210  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2018, 3:43 PM
texboy texboy is offline
constructor extrodinaire!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,348
SAT May Numbers

Quote:
The airport continues to market itself and the city as a prime destination for business and leisure travelers. The strategy is working according to last month’s statistics. The airport is already on pace to exceed passenger numbers from last year. Nearly 841,000 passengers flew through the airport in the month of May, an increase of nearly 64,000 more passengers than the same month last year.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1211  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2018, 5:32 PM
wmdwms wmdwms is offline
wmdwms
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 3
Post Terminal A/C Expansion

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

https://webapp1.sanantonio.gov/RFPFi...6290605432.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1212  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2018, 11:56 PM
Restless 1 Restless 1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 437
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1213  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2018, 1:18 AM
JACKinBeantown's Avatar
JACKinBeantown JACKinBeantown is offline
JACKinBeantown
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 7,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmdwms View Post
Since some of you seem to be interested in this sort of thing.

https://webapp1.sanantonio.gov/RFPFi...6290605432.pdf
Thanks! That's very comprehensive.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless 1 View Post
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.
If they build in New Braunfels they BETTER build a high speed rail to get people there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1214  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2018, 1:57 AM
ILUVSAT's Avatar
ILUVSAT ILUVSAT is offline
May the Schwartz be w/ U!
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: S.A. | Nashville
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless 1 View Post
There are also rumors in high places that if they can't make that work, they may build a new airport in New Braunfels.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1215  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2018, 2:10 AM
Restless 1 Restless 1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown View Post
Thanks! That's very comprehensive.




If they build in New Braunfels they BETTER build a high speed rail to get people there.
People are driving to Austin now, why not NB?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1216  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2018, 2:14 AM
Restless 1 Restless 1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILUVSAT View Post
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.
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.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1217  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2018, 2:21 AM
Restless 1 Restless 1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 437
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1218  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2018, 2:51 AM
Spoiler's Avatar
Spoiler Spoiler is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless 1 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1219  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2018, 4:17 AM
UltraDanPrime's Avatar
UltraDanPrime UltraDanPrime is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 159
Hey everyone, we dont know who, but this is on good authority, so it must be true!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1220  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2018, 5:51 AM
Restless 1 Restless 1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoiler View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > San Antonio
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:57 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.