SAN ANTONIO | City and Metro Transportation Thread

[PartyLine]

Originally Posted by oldmanshirt

And as has been explained, ABIA effectively draws from the same area as SAT when you take into account Killeen-Temple-Ft Hood and those from Comal and Guad counties. Add to that the greater amount of discretionary spending in the Austin area for things like travel, plus the fact that SA is easier to get to via car, and I think you've got your explanation.

Now can we please stop talking about Austin in the SAT forum? I don't see any SA forumers going to the ABIA thread and talking about SA.

According to mapquest SAT is 26.47 miles from New Braunfels and ABIA is 50.70 miles so SAT is CLOSER

[LoneStarMike]

Out of curiosity, I went to DOT's Consumer Airfare Report (Table 6) to see what the most popular domestic destinations out of San Antonio were. The data is from Q2 2008 - the latest data available.

A couple of notes:

The number of daily passengers in each market includes people traveling in either direction. So for example SAT - DFW - 1938 daily passengers mean that about half that number (969) are flying from SAT to Dallas on a daily basis and the other half are flying from Dallas to SAT.

These numbers are for origin and destination traffic only, meaning that the passenger either starts their trip in SAT and ends in the other city, or starts in the other city and ends in SAT. Again, using SAT-Dallas as an example 1,938 passengers per day either start in SAT and end in Dallas or start in Dallas and end in SAT. The numbers do not include folks who fly from SAT to DFW to make a connection to go on to somewhere else.

Here's the list ranked in order:

01. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX (includes DFW and Love Field) - 1,938 daily passengers
02. Chicago, IL (includes O'Hare and Midway) - 874 daily passengers
03. New York, NY (includes JFK, La Guardia and Newark) - 734 daily passengers
04. Las Vegas, NV - 701 daily passengers
05. Houston, TX (includes Intercontinental and Hobby) - 632 daily passengers
06. Baltimore, MD - 585 daily passengers
07. Atlanta, GA - 579 daily passengers
08. Denver, CO - 563 daily passengers
09. Los Angeles, CA (LAX only) - 519 daily passengers
10. Phoenix, AZ - 472 daily passengers
11. Washington, DC (includes Dulles and National) - 462 daily passengers
12. Orlando, FL - 429 daily passengers
13. El Paso, TX - 398 daily passengers
14. Philadelphia, PA - 371 daily passengers
15. Detroit, MI - 338 daily passengers
16. San Diego, CA - 329 daily passengers
17. Seattle, WA - 315 daily passengers
18. St. Louis, MO - 314 daily passengers
19. Fort Lauderdale, FL - 311 daily passengers
20. Kansas City, MO - 298 daily passengers
21. Tampa, FL - 262 daily passengers
22. Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN - 225 daily passengers (tie)
22. Nashville, TN - 225 daily passengers (tie)
24. Boston, MA - 208 daily passengers
25. Harlingen, TX - 204 daily passengers
26. San Francisco, CA - 193 daily passengers
27. Raleigh-Durham, NC - 190 daily passengers
28. Indianapolis, IN - 186 daily passengers
29. Salt Lake City, UT - 184 daily passengers
30. Oklahoma City, OK - 183 daily passengers
31. Santa Ana, CA (Orange County) - 159 daily passengers
32. Columbus, OH - 155 daily passengers (tie)
32. New Orleans, LA - 155 daily passengers (tie)
34. Pittsburgh, PA - 154 daily passengers
35. Tulsa, OK - 152 daily passengers
36. Portland, OR - 147 daily passengers
37. Norfolk, VA - 139 daily passengers
38. Charlotte, NC - 136 daily passengers
39. Little Rock, AR - 135 daily passengers
40. Sacramento, CA - 133 daily passengers
41. San Jose, CA - 128 daily passengers
42. Cleveland, OH - 121 daily passengers
43. Jacksonville, FL - 118 daily passengers (tie)
43. Oakland, CA - 118 daily passengers (tie)
45. Hartford, CT - 117 daily passengers (tie)
45. Omaha, NE - 117 daily passengers (tie)
47. Albuquerque, NM - 115 daily passengers
48. Amarillo, TX - 107 daily passengers
49. Birmingham, AL - 99 daily passengers
50. Louisville, KY - 98 daily passengers

It looks like Seattle, Kansas City, and Boston are the three most popular destinations out of SAT that currently do not have any nonstop service.

[KevinFromTexas]

This thread is for San Antonio.

I've already had to delete a few Austin vs San Antonio posts from here a few days ago.

Talking about both cities is fine for certain topics involving the airport(s). Sometimes that can be helpful to the topic here. But when it becomes a contest of who's bigger and better, I'll delete those since they go negative almost every time.

[miaht82]

Recession grounds airport expansion
(Infrastructure & Transportation : San Antonio) 2/12/2009

(San Antonio) - The economic recession has slowed San Antonio's plan to expand its airport. After a stretch of high passenger numbers, with records hit four years in a row, San Antonio International Airport is now headed into a slump, interim Aviation Director Mike Sawaya told City Council.

Construction was ready to start next year on the $123 million Terminal C and its five passenger gates by 2012, with room to add six more. However, the latest passenger forecast shows the first five gates will not even be needed until 2014. Officials now estimate 4 percent fewer passengers this year compared to last year's 8.4 million, and bouncing back could take a year or two.

The last slide in airport traffic, ignited by the 2001 recession and terrorist attacks, lasted three years, and rebounding back to the 2000 level took another two years.

Meanwhile, work is underway on the $134 million Terminal B to replace the 40-year-old Terminal 2 by late 2010, and on an elevated road to link terminals B and C. The existing Terminal 1 will be renamed Terminal A. In July, the last of 2,800 spaces in a five-level parking garage opened, bringing total parking to 9,000 spots.

It's going to be interesting to see how the numbers are going to be affected once BRAC settles in the next couple of years.
I think people are really underestimating the overall impact that that alone will have here in SA.

[oldmanshirt]

I agree, I don't think they were taking that into account in their report. If Terminal C wasn't even expected to break ground until next year, well who knows what things will look like then.

[sirkingwilliam]

This is either them being incredibly short-sided "Hey, the projected number of passengers is supposed to decrease so let's hold off until it picks up! That's smart!"

OR

They're covering up delays with the recession excuse.

Hmmm...?

[Trae]

I'll go for option B.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam

This is either them being incredibly short-sided "Hey, the projected number of passengers is supposed to decrease so let's hold off until it picks up! That's smart.

As disappointing as this may seem, it actually is a smart move on SAT's part and here's why.

One of the things that makes SAT attractive to potential new airlines is the fact that SAT's airport costs for the airlines are a lot lower than at most other airports. Every airport has what's known as an airline's cost per passenger. This is the data for SAT from page 20 of SAT's 2007 Annual Report. (pdf file)

SAT Airline cost per passenger

2000 - $3.08
2001 - $3.50
2002 - $4.14
2003 - $4.76
2004 - $4.31
2005 - $3.62
2006 - $3.04
2007 - $3.34

Notice that the three years where SAT's cost per passenger went above $4.00 were the three years where SAT (and almost every other airport in the nation) had decreased passengers due to the 9/11 attacks and a decline in the economy. When you have fewer overall passengers to spread your costs among, then the cost per passenger will rise. Airlines don't like that. (Sacramento is undergoing an expensive expansion which will drive the airlines' costs up at a time when passenger traffic is declining and the airlines there aren't happy at all.)

If SAT's 2009 passenger counts decline, then the cost per passenger will rise again. If SAT truly believes that Terminal C won't be needed until 2014, then it's best to put it on hold. If SAT were to go ahead and proceed, that would only drive up the airline's cost per passenger even more, which would make SAT less attractive for potential new airlines as well as SAT's existing airlines who may be considering whether or not to add additional service.

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Talking about both cities is fine for certain topics involving the airport(s). Sometimes that can be helpful to the topic here.

I think this is one instance where a comparison is in order. I couldn't find AUS' cost per passenger all the way back to 2000, but here's the data from 2003 through 2008.

AUS airline cost per passenger

2003 - $7.37
2004 - $8.72
2005 - $7.83
2006 - $7.26
2007 - $7.26
2008 - $7.92

As you can see, AUS is twice as expensive as SAT. In fact, I think AUS is the most expensive of all the major Texas airports, although we're still lower than many other airports around the nation.

I always thought AirTran would have had an equal chance of success in either AUS or SAT, but they obviously picked SAT. I think one factor that may have tipped the scales in SAT's favor is the fact that their airline cost per passenger is so much lower than at AUS.

Anyway, who knows? Maybe by the time Terminal B is finished and the existing old terminal is demolished, the economy will have rebounded enough that SAT may go ahead with Terminal C. I guess time will tell.

[texastarkus]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

I always thought AirTran would have had an equal chance of success in either AUS or SAT, but they obviously picked SAT. I think one factor that may have tipped the scales in SAT's favor is the fact that their airline cost per passenger is so much lower than at AUS.

Nope..that is not the reason AirTran and Spirit chose SAT over AUS. It stems from the owner of VivaAerobus. The European carrier RyanAir is an owner of VivaAerobus, and they were also an owner of SkyBus. SkyBus was in the final stages of making the South Terminal in Austin their south-central U.S. hub and a connecting point for VivaAerobus into Mexico, when SkyBus went out of business. AirTran picked SAT because they felt they couldn't compete with a Ryan affiliate.

As for Spirit Airlines, when Spirit started looking at a South Texas or Central Texas airport - Southwest quickly announced they would start flying from Ft. Lauderdale to Austin. Southwest wanted to protect their position in AUS and Spirit can't compete with Southwest so they chose SAT.
As for the enplaned passenger fees, they will rise in SAT because the current construction costs has to be paid somehow and making the San Antonio airport look like a new one is gonna cost a pretty penny.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by texastarkus

The European carrier RyanAir is an owner of VivaAerobus,

Yes, that is true

and they were also an owner of SkyBus.

By any chance, do you have a source? I know that the Ryan family are investors in another low cost carrier - Allegiant, but I didn't think they were investors of Skybus.

Now, according to this article, one of the investors of Skybus was a former executive of RyanAir. Other major investors of Skybus included Fidelity Investments (12.6% ownership), Morgan Stanley (6.4%), Nationwide Mutual Capital (5%), and Tiger Management (4.1%). Smaller investors included Huntington Capital Investment Co., Wolfe Enterprises (owner of The Columbus Dispatch), and Battelle Services Co. Inc.

SkyBus was in the final stages of making the South Terminal in Austin their south-central U.S. hub

That part is definitely true. I remember them mentioning it several times in the city council meetings here in Austin.

and a connecting point for VivaAerobus into Mexico

I could be wrong, but I don't think VivaAerobus ever had plans to codeshare with Skybus. If a Skybus customer had wanted to fly to Austin to catch a VivaAerobus flight to Mexico, I suppose they could have done so, but it would have involved buying two separate tickets. A Skybus ticket to AUS and a VivaAerobus ticket onwards to Mexico. The passenger would have also had to claim their luggage in Austin and recheck it with VivaAerobus onwards to Mexico. I say this because on VivaAerobus' website they state:

Do you offer flight connections?

VivaAerobus is strictly a point-to-point airline.We do not transfer or connect passengers and/or their baggage to other VivaAerobus flights or other airline flights. VivaAerobus accepts no responsibility for making connections and will not be liable for any losses or expenses associated with flight connections.

Source

AirTran picked SAT because they felt they couldn't compete with a Ryan affiliate.

One of the reasons AirTran picked SAT may have been because they didn't want to compete with Skybus, but I still think SAT's low airport costs were another factor.

Also, since AirTran flies to Atlanta from SAT and Atlanta is their hub, they can offer connecting service to several other major business markets like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Hartford, etc. I don't think Skybus even served Atlanta and most of the other airports they served were secondary airports like Portsmouth, NH (alternate for Boston); Newburgh, NY (alternate for New York City): Wilmington, DE (alternate for Philadelphia) and Chicopee, MA (alternate for Hartford), so I'm not sure why AirTran may have felt they couldn't compete with Skybus.

As for Spirit Airlines, when Spirit started looking at a South Texas or Central Texas airport - Southwest quickly announced they would start flying from Ft. Lauderdale to Austin. Southwest wanted to protect their position in AUS and Spirit can't compete with Southwest so they chose SAT.

I agree. It was interesting that Southwest announced their intentions to serve AUS-FLL on January 9, 2008 and the a week later, on January 16, 2008, Spirit announced their intentions to serve SAT-FLL. And of course, a month later JetBlue also announced a new AUS-FLL flight starting around the same time as Southwest's AUS-FLL flight. I always wondered at the time if Southwest might have caught wind of JetBlue's intentions and beat them to the punch, but I never did know for sure.

As for the enplaned passenger fees, they will rise in SAT because the current construction costs has to be paid somehow and making the San Antonio airport look like a new one is gonna cost a pretty penny.

True, the enplaned passenger fees will likely rise, but I don't think they'll be anywhere near what Austin's fees are, and by postponing Terminal C, that may help keep costs down enough to satisfy the airlines at SAT. One reason AUS is so high is because the terminal/parking garage and lots & second runway is only 10 years old and the costs of the current terminal and parking garages and everything else are still being paid off.

SAT's existing terminals were built decades ago and are most likely already paid for. The only new costs (I think) would be for the elevated roadway, the new parking garage, and the construction of Terminal B and later the demolition of the terminal it's replacing. Since SAT was already working on the roadway in front of the airport and the new parking garage in 2008, it will be interesting to see what the cost per enplaned passenger was during 2008. We'll find out whenever SAT releases it's annual report for 2008 - most likely coming up pretty soon.

Also, the new parking garage will generate revenue for the airport and that, along with concession sales and taxes on rental cars are all considered non-airline revenue. The more non-airline revenue an airport can generate, the less airline revenue it has to collect from the existing carriers in the form of landing fees, terminal rents, etc.

And hopefully, Terminal B will end up being like the new parking garage - completed ahead of schedule and under budget. Wouldn't that be nice?

[Paul in S.A TX]

Is there any renderings of the new terminals?

[PartyLine]

Originally Posted by oldmanshirt

And as has been explained, ABIA effectively draws from the same area as SAT when you take into account Killeen-Temple-Ft Hood and those from Comal and Guad counties. Add to that the greater amount of discretionary spending in the Austin area for things like travel, plus the fact that SA is easier to get to via car, and I think you've got your explanation.

Now can we please stop talking about Austin in the SAT forum? I don't see any SA forumers going to the ABIA thread and talking about SA.

Killeen/Temple have to fly out of Austin there isn't any other major airport close people aren't going do drive 2 or 3 hours to Dallas to catch a flight.

[necropolis]

Hey don't know if ya'll have seen this but the airport's website has a construction update and a few pics (as of Jan 09) and there is also a link to a webcam to view progress on the new terminal.

Link to the Webcam>>>> http://71.40.102.189/airport_webcam/

[M II A II R II K]

A thread to discuss transportation news and developments.

[TXlifeguard]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

A thread to discuss transportation news and developments.

Did anyone catch that anti-toll zealot Teri Hall was the Keynote at the San Antonio 'Tea Party' at the Alamo on Wednesday? Who thought to give her top billing? She's a one-trick pony. Like Steve Forbes was when he ran for president in 1996. (His solution to immigration reform, illegal drugs, welfare, trade agreements, and defense spending was all the same; the flat tax.) I haven't read the paper yet or seen an excerpt of her comments, but it would be interesting to see if she had anything else in her bag-o-tricks that would demonstrate SOME political maturation. Otherwise, I can imagine her comments being limited to the oft-debunked 'building toll roads is double taxing drivers' (ignoring the existing government subsidies to pay-to-use public entities and services like the state university systems, public transit, air traffic control systems for general and commercial aviation....) Most of the people attending the 'tea party' have a beef with the stimulus package, taxes, and Washington's accountability to the citizens. Clearly it was the largest audience she's ever had. Hopefully the folx there saw her for what she is; the fringe element.

On a personal note, I didn't go. For those who went because they have a beef with the debt brought on by the stimulus bill, I disagree, but completely respect their opinion. I've got a degree in political science (most there haven't had a civics class in dozens of years, much less a degree in the stuff) but it seems those people have forgotten that we live in a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY. We elect people to go somewhere and make decisions for us. And we get that chance at least every two years on the state and national level- annually if you factor in the varying timing of voting for school boards, water boards, city and county officials, etc. I've always been fascinated that people seem to love their representatives, but hate the bodies they are elected to (it doesn't matter if you hate Barney Frank- he's not your representative, you don't get to overrule the people who did vote for him). But choosing who you elect IS your choice in the matter. No one is even threatening to take that away. Don't like your taxes? Vote for the other guy. Why is that hard to understand?

I did think about going and protesting Teri's speech. Thought about holding a sign that said, "Don't trust her. She doesn't live in Bexar County. Who asked her to speak for us on our transportation issues?" But then I realized it wouldn't fit on a sign, so I played softball and drank beer with my buddies instead.

[Schertz1]

February's passenger count decreased 12.7% from 2008 and 10% for the year.


http://www.sanantonio.gov/aviation/i...00932426PM.pdf

[miaht82]

Those numbers should be temporary. I expect them to be up by the end of this year.

[sakyle04]

I got a Facebook request to join a San Antonio Light Rail Advocacy Group. Interesting.

Want to join? Find me on facebook through this link (i think):
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...22&ref=profile

I'll then invite you to the group.

[Schertz1]

SAT passenger count down 4.3% for March and 7.7% year to date.


http://www.sanantonio.gov/aviation/i...00983426AM.pdf

[Schertz1]

http://www.sanantonio.gov/aviation/i...09100423AM.pdf