San Antonio International Airport News & Updates

[Runner]

Originally Posted by SproutingTowers

Kelly Field To add civilian operations.

https://www.flyingmag.com/story/news/military-airports-civillian-operation/

So what exactly does this mean for San Antonio will Southwest be able to use Kelly Airport?

[SproutingTowers]

Originally Posted by Runner

So what exactly does this mean for San Antonio will Southwest be able to use Kelly Airport?

Found more info where looks like infrastructure upgrades to support civilian flights to reduce congestion at existing airports. So yes perhaps private or small commercial aircraft could fly out of Kelly. Perhaps will be like the South Terminal at ABIA where Frontier and Allegiant airlines occupy.

[LSPaul]

Originally Posted by Runner

So what exactly does this mean for San Antonio will Southwest be able to use Kelly Airport?

If I'm not mistaken, Kelly has a 11,500+ foot runway. Perhaps that could be available for long haulers in the short term.

[texboy]

Originally Posted by LSPaul

If I'm not mistaken, Kelly has a 11,500+ foot runway. Perhaps that could be available for long haulers in the short term.

Not necessary really. The 8,500 ft runway at SAT is still able to land and take off an A350 to Western Europe and S. America. I doubt SAT would get any kind of transatlantic outside of that distance in the next decade.

[Spoiler]

For Kelly to take international or commercial flights there would need to be lots of infrastructure built for customs, TEA, etc. You'd basically need to build a whole terminal, wouldn't you (I'm not familiar with air transit rules or what is already built at Kelly Field)? My guess is this would be for private aircraft, similar to Stinson, but again, I don't know much about air travel.

[babysal]

The Alamo City airport has already topped the number of international passengers it handled in all of 2019


By W. Scott Bailey – Senior Reporter, San Antonio Business Journal
5 hours ago

Austin clearly has a leg up on San Antonio when it comes to intercontinental air access, and that’s no insignificant advantage given the potential economic implications.

But the Alamo City is funneling more than four times as many international passengers through its airport than Austin has so far this year and that could prove a key stat as San Antonio officials engage airlines about expanded global connectivity.

Currently, the only flights available at San Antonio International Airport to non-U.S. destinations are to Mexico. Yet, in January through August of this year, more than 510,000 international passengers flew into or out of SAT.

Austin Bergstrom International Airport offers nonstop flights to several countries beyond Mexico including Canada, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, England, Germany and the Netherlands. But its international passenger count over the same period was less than 110,000.

“We’ve actually exceeded all of calendar year 2019 in international passengers and the year isn’t done yet,” said Brian Pratte, chief air services development officer for the City of San Antonio.

While Austin is far-better connected in terms of international air access, San Antonio officials are working to narrow that gap. On Nov. 10, local airport officials are expected to formally present to San Antonio’s City Council an approximately $2 billion strategic development plan that would significantly expand and improve SAT. That plan includes an extension of runway 13R-31L to 10,000 feet to accommodate more longer-haul aircraft.

“Our current runway does allow us to hit parts of Western Europe with the right aircraft type. We can access markets like London and Frankfurt now,” Pratte said. “The longer runway removes any constraints and allows us to go further into Europe and even Asia.”

San Antonio leaders met with international carriers prior to the pandemic. Those talks have resumed and City Council's backing of the airport redevelopment plan could lead to more serious dialogue.

Greater:SATX officials recently visited Toronto, meeting with industry organizations and employers to promote this region’s tech, bioscience and manufacturing industries.

"Restoring a direct flight to Toronto would open our region to a greater economic partnership with Canada’s largest city, as well as provide direct access to hundreds of nonstop destinations including Europe and Asia," greater:SATX President and CEO Jenna Saucedo-Herrera said.

Jesus Saenz, director of airports for the San Antonio Airport System, expects airport improvements will boost efforts to add international flights to multiple destinations.

“We are already speaking with international carriers regarding transatlantic service,” Pratte said.

[AI0120]

While I appreciate the enthusiasm and effort to improve SAT and its destinations, Europe is still a loooooooong way off.

And the international numbers are a bit skewed. With the land border being closed between the US and Mexico, people had to travel via air. Once the border reopens, I think we'll see airline numbers drop more towards 2019 levels.

AUS international numbers are almost irrelevant because the British Airways flight just started mid-October. Lufthansa to Germany has not operated all year. KLM never got started. Air Canada and WestJet did not operate either. So you'll see AUS easily pass SAT in 2022 in terms of international passengers now that the US is relaxing restrictions.

SAT, as of today, has one flight to JFK on JetBlue. American returns early next year, as does Delta in February, but if they can barely support JFK flights, which is the gateway to not only Europe, but all international connections, they're gonna have a tough time convincing airlines a transatlantic flight would work. Think SAT should focus on Air Canada returning, and Central/South America routes before thinking Europe.

This quote from the article kind of says it all
"San Antonio leaders met with international carriers prior to the pandemic. Those talks have resumed and City Council's backing of the airport redevelopment plan could lead to more serious dialogue." Basically sounds like the dialogue was not serious at all and airport leaders were just brushed aside.

All that aside, I am excited that leaders are finally planning to improve the airport and expand the runway so if/when SAT could support European flights, the facilities are ready and we're not playing catch up.

[theOGalexd]

Originally Posted by AI0120

While I appreciate the enthusiasm and effort to improve SAT and its destinations, Europe is still a loooooooong way off.

And the international numbers are a bit skewed. With the land border being closed between the US and Mexico, people had to travel via air. Once the border reopens, I think we'll see airline numbers drop more towards 2019 levels.

AUS international numbers are almost irrelevant because the British Airways flight just started mid-October. Lufthansa to Germany has not operated all year. KLM never got started. Air Canada and WestJet did not operate either. So you'll see AUS easily pass SAT in 2022 in terms of international passengers now that the US is relaxing restrictions.

SAT, as of today, has one flight to JFK on JetBlue. American returns early next year, as does Delta in February, but if they can barely support JFK flights, which is the gateway to not only Europe, but all international connections, they're gonna have a tough time convincing airlines a transatlantic flight would work. Think SAT should focus on Air Canada returning, and Central/South America routes before thinking Europe.

This quote from the article kind of says it all
"San Antonio leaders met with international carriers prior to the pandemic. Those talks have resumed and City Council's backing of the airport redevelopment plan could lead to more serious dialogue." Basically sounds like the dialogue was not serious at all and airport leaders were just brushed aside.

All that aside, I am excited that leaders are finally planning to improve the airport and expand the runway so if/when SAT could support European flights, the facilities are ready and we're not playing catch up.

I'd think with the military SA would be able to support a Frankfurt flight but maybe not

[texboy]

Originally Posted by AI0120

While I appreciate the enthusiasm and effort to improve SAT and its destinations, Europe is still a loooooooong way off.

And the international numbers are a bit skewed. With the land border being closed between the US and Mexico, people had to travel via air. Once the border reopens, I think we'll see airline numbers drop more towards 2019 levels.

AUS international numbers are almost irrelevant because the British Airways flight just started mid-October. Lufthansa to Germany has not operated all year. KLM never got started. Air Canada and WestJet did not operate either. So you'll see AUS easily pass SAT in 2022 in terms of international passengers now that the US is relaxing restrictions.

SAT, as of today, has one flight to JFK on JetBlue. American returns early next year, as does Delta in February, but if they can barely support JFK flights, which is the gateway to not only Europe, but all international connections, they're gonna have a tough time convincing airlines a transatlantic flight would work. Think SAT should focus on Air Canada returning, and Central/South America routes before thinking Europe.

This quote from the article kind of says it all
"San Antonio leaders met with international carriers prior to the pandemic. Those talks have resumed and City Council's backing of the airport redevelopment plan could lead to more serious dialogue." Basically sounds like the dialogue was not serious at all and airport leaders were just brushed aside.

All that aside, I am excited that leaders are finally planning to improve the airport and expand the runway so if/when SAT could support European flights, the facilities are ready and we're not playing catch up.

I'd like to see WestJet enter the market. Air Canada is fine, but they didn't seem willing to set a schedule that would be successful in SA. WestJet is more of a lower cost carrier that would probably prove a better fit for the SA leisure market.

And in terms of TransAtlantic... I maintain that with the right schedule (probably a 3 or 4 times weekly departure schedule) on a non-business airline (RIP Norwegian Air's international flights) to Frankfurt or London, and on a 757/767, I think SA could handle that.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by texboy

Not necessary really. The 8,500 ft runway at SAT is still able to land and take off an A350 to Western Europe and S. America. I doubt SAT would get any kind of transatlantic outside of that distance in the next decade.

Actually, at I believe at MTOW and SAT's elevation of roughly 1,000' the A350-900 would need close to 3,000m as a minimum. Also, it would need more room during summer months. Any other piece of long-haul equipment would require a bit (or a lot) more for take-offs.

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by LSPaul

If I'm not mistaken, Kelly has a 11,500+ foot runway. Perhaps that could be available for long haulers in the short term.

No international carrier, in their right mind (especially post pandemic), would commit to a "temporary" commercial airport. Kelly commercial usage is under a five-year agreement with the Feds. Yes, it "could" be extended. However, it's not permanent - at the moment.

[texboy]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

Actually, at I believe at MTOW and SAT's elevation of roughly 1,000' the A350-900 would need close to 3,000m as a minimum. Also, it would need more room during summer months. Any other piece of long-haul equipment would require a bit (or a lot) more for take-offs.

Fully loaded 777's have landed at SAT before... albeit on diversion, but that in and of itself should tell you what you need to know about what potentially can land and take off on the current runway situation. Western Europe and S. America are in fact viable with the current runway lengths.

And also for reference I've had this exact convo with people in my company who actually do engineering for runways, as I work as a PM on airport construction projects.

[ILUVSAT]

As a PM on airport projects I would assume you would know that an airplane landing is not considered "fully loaded." Where's all the gas weight with which it took off?

Have any B777s taken off from SAT @ MTOW to Europe? Did that take-off occur during July or August?

[LSPaul]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

No international carrier, in their right mind (especially post pandemic), would commit to a "temporary" commercial airport. Kelly commercial usage is under a five-year agreement with the Feds. Yes, it "could" be extended. However, it's not permanent - at the moment.

I was thinking more in terms of cargo. At the present time most overseas items that are too large for standard air freight are trucked to DFW as that is the closest departure point for such freight, particularly for Asia I know because I've been involved in such shipments. Even items manufactured in northern Mexico that need such service are trucked all the way to DFW for such transport.

[Keep-SA-Lame]

Originally Posted by LSPaul

I was thinking more in terms of cargo. At the present time most overseas items that are too large for standard air freight are trucked to DFW as that is the closest departure point for such freight, particularly for Asia I know because I've been involved in such shipments. Even items manufactured in northern Mexico that need such service are trucked all the way to DFW for such transport.

Sorry I'm a logistics ignoramus, but why would you truck items to Dallas to ship to northern Mexico? Monterrey is about as far from SA as Dallas, you can't just truck it directly?

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by LSPaul

I was thinking more in terms of cargo. At the present time most overseas items that are too large for standard air freight are trucked to DFW as that is the closest departure point for such freight, particularly for Asia I know because I've been involved in such shipments. Even items manufactured in northern Mexico that need such service are trucked all the way to DFW for such transport.

Interesting. Do you know why they don't use IAH?

Regarding DFW...it is a huge UPS and FedEx hub. They also have four 13,400' runways at a relatively low altitude (about 600'). Therefore, one could easily have a fully loaded cargo flight take off for Europe, South America or Asia (via Anchorage) - even during the summer months. Both MEX and MTY are at a much higher altitude (7,340' & 1,280 respectively) and their longest runways are shorter (12,966' & 9,800' respectively) than DFW. I'm also not sure what kind of cargo facilities they have onsite.

[LSPaul]

Originally Posted by Keep-SA-Lame

Sorry I'm a logistics ignoramus, but why would you truck items to Dallas to ship to northern Mexico? Monterrey is about as far from SA as Dallas, you can't just truck it directly?

I'm referring to the large items, such as heavy machinery, that cannot fly on standard air freight. There is such scheduled service out of DFW using wide body class aircraft but that can only be done out of places like Monterrey on a charter basis, which is much more expensive than it would be to just move the cargo to DFW instead. It's the air freight equivalent of LTL truck shipping where "sharing a truckload" is cheaper than a dedicated trailer.

But I failed to mention that this goes both ways. Heavy freight items going to places like northern Mexico, usually from Asia, that cannot afford to wait to go by sea, will often be flown to a port like DFW and be trucked to the destination. This is probably the more common scenario, I just have more experience with outbound freight.

[texboy]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

As a PM on airport projects I would assume you would know that an airplane landing is not considered "fully loaded." Where's all the gas weight with which it took off?

Have any B777s taken off from SAT @ MTOW to Europe? Did that take-off occur during July or August?

Do you work for WSP USA that put in their report that an A350-900 could take off from SAT and land in western Europe? The 777 example was just that... an example.

[GoldenBoot]

Gentlemen. Let's please calm this down.

A few things...if SAT had the demand for intercontinental flights, I believe they would have at least one by now. However, SAT is hampered by (1) demand (especially demand for premium products - for which airlines are looking in determining international routes) and (2) short runways. Year round, intercontinental operations are not possible on an 8,500' runway. Additionally, the A350 is a pride of an airline's fleet. They are not going to operate it on questionable routes.

Of the possible airlines who operate the A350, only a very tiny few would even consider SAT. Sadly, at this point, none of them would initiate service using their A350's - leaving open the possibility to operate other equipment. However, now we are back to the problem of a short, 8,500' runway. As it has already been pointed out, that is not long enough for operations year round - especially using alternate long-haul equipment. For this reason, SAT is planning on lengthening a runway to 10,000'. Another way to think about it - if 8,500' was good enough, they wouldn't spend the millions in lengthening it.

[Verbl1]

Originally Posted by cole world11

Glad you enjoyed it! And hope the trip to Boston was nice. But does anyone else find it odd for an inaugural flight to be held on a Sunday? Was anyone on the inbound or outbound flight today?

It was last week and it seem like a lot of people were bored and when we got off too. I think this is going to be a great route for the city and our airport.