Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Update/Latest Info On SAN's T2W Expansion  
User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5400 posts, RR: 12
Posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5263 times:

For those interested, there's new information -- a presentation made last Friday -- about the 10-gate build-out of T2. Here's the link to it:

http://www.san.org/documents/boardmeetings/tdp_agenda_item_1.pdf

It contains 76 pages of info, some old, some new, including some renderings I have not seen before, financing, time lines, and even art work.

Keep in mind that the monthly SDCRAA board meeting is this Thursday (April 2) and the official approval for the expansion is expected to happen at that time; there will be a webcast accessible at this link if anyone is available and interested in watching: http://www.san.org/airport_authority/boardmeetings.asp

A couple of things I've noticed already (keeping in mind that this is all still subject to final design approval and project scope): there is no automobile parking structure included, and there are subtle hints throughout about a possibility of there being some sort of Int'l/FIS facilities incorporated in the new building. (I find even the possibility of that exciting!)

Despite the ongoing -- and typical -- uncertainty about the more distant future fate of commercial aviation in San Diego (i.e., where the heck will the airport really end up?), I am so glad to see that the board has at least decided that this immediate expansion is very much needed and WILL happen!

bb

49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLindy Field From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5199 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi bb,

Even though I'm as much of a fan as can probably be found of SAN, this strikes me as a huge waste of money if the airport will be completely rebuilt in a decade's time. If the airport needs extra capacity, then a sort of temporary modular structure of the type built at Berlin Tegel (TXL) as a terminal for Air Berlin is appropriate. (In case you are unfamiliar with the airport situation in Berlin, TXL is slated to close in a few years when the new fancy Berlin airport BBI opens. In the meanwhile, traffic to Berlin is booming and Air Berlin decided to inaugurate a hub at TXL. The Germans have built a few very simple but serviceable terminals for Air Berlin and other tenants at TXL. They aren't luxurious in the least, but they do they job at a fraction of the cost of a fancy terminal. Incidentally, a similar structure was constructed at Berlin Schoenefeld (SXF) for Germanwings.)

For the press release related to the opening of the terminal at TXL, see below:
http://www.berlin-airport.de/EN/Pres...gen/2007/2007_05_22_TerminalC.html

Regards,

Edward


User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2614 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5126 times:

Wow, this is going faster than Obama's stimulus package. I attended the meeting last Monday on Destination Lindbergh and nothing was said about this Terminal Development Plan. Obviously, its been in the works.
Does anyone know if this meeting was held without the public?
Was it publicly noticed in accordance with the Brown Act?
I've seen nothing in the UT on this plan or meeting.
From the original poster, it looks like this plan will be shown and approved in front of the SDCRAA this Thursday.
SANfan, did you stumble onto the webpage or how did you find out about this plan?


User currently offlineEghansen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5099 times:

Not sure what everybody is talking about, but here goes.

The additional gates at T2 have been planned for years. T2 was originally designed in the master plan to have gates on both sides of the pier as anybody who has ever visited the terminal can attest. It has a completely blank wall with no windows on the west side and the round part at the end seems partially finished. The airport decided to build T2 in phases to meet demand.

Destination Lindbergh is a bogus piece of nonsense. It was put together by the Mayor of San Diego who has no jurisdiction over the airport, Steve Peace who is a retired state senator searching for a limelight to place himself in and Alan Bersin who is a retired US Attorney who ran the school district for seven years despite knowing nothing about education and then switched over to the Board of the SDCRAA knowing nothing about aviation.

The airlines have no interest in it, the SDCRAA has no interest in it, the FAA has no interest in it, the SD City Council refused to endorse it and none of the promoters have the $11 billion required to make it happen. Destination Lindbergh will happen at the same time that the City of San Diego builds a $450 million stadium with retractable dome for the Chargers.


User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5400 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5013 times:



Quoting Eghansen (Reply 3):
Destination Lindbergh is a bogus piece of nonsense.

I pretty much agree with you, Eghansen; Dest. Lind., as a concept, is in its very early stages of discussion and may or may not ever happen. (It will certainly be fought tooth-and-nail by the usual NIMBYs!) In any case, it will be discussed a lot.

But not here. I am simply talking about the go-ahead for the 10-gate expansion of T2W, which, as you have pointed out, is certainly not a new concept; it's just that it's finally going to get approved and start happening!

It is needed -- in fact, it's overdue -- and it's been delayed, and the opening of the new section of the terminal is still over 3 years off. I personally am very happy to see that we have finally gotten to this point and will see ground broken in a couple of months (hopefully!)

After all, this expansion will increase the (gate) capacity of SAN by about 25% while increasing facilities available for larger, wide-bodied aircraft, and probably, more int'l service!

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 2):
SANfan, did you stumble onto the webpage or how did you find out about this plan?

I just constantly check the SAN.org web site as well as try to keep in touch with some of those people involved with SDIA and SDCRAA. The airport folks, via the web site, have really become quite open (AFAIK) about trying to keep the public updated on what's happening at Lindbergh; there's lots of good information available for the finding. (Sometimes a bit of digging is necessary but there's nothing unusual about that.)

bb


User currently offlineSANMAN66 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 789 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4959 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm glad they're doing something about the airport expansion.I'm simply puzzled as to
why the parking garage is such a controversy.I'm aware that the Pt.Loma NIMBYs are
afraid that the garage may cause more traffic, but I believe that traffic will increase if they
continue to put airport parking all over the Harbor drive area.There would be less traffic if the parking structure was right next to T-2 where it is planned because all the traffic would be
consolidated in one area.I saw the one concept proposed by the mayor,Steve Peace,etc.
I still wonder how they plan to tunnel under the runway for the underground
peoplemover system without disrupting flights? I wish they would address this concept,
otherwise it just sounds like another grand pipe dream that only looks good on paper.



PSA Gives you a lift!
User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5400 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4914 times:

My guess about the parking structure is this: get the 10-gate terminal expansion under way, including the elevated roadway (separation of arriving and departing pax), which is a must, and later, easily add the garage ("around" the elevated roadway) as a separate project -- after lots of pondering and studying... That way the initial cost of the project (without the garage) is less, and the anger of the NIMBYs is initially reduced as well.

bb


User currently offlineTheGMan From United States of America, joined Nov 2008, 655 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4900 times:

SAN needs more runways. Something that Lindbergh field cannot offer.

User currently offlineEghansen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4884 times:



Quoting SANFan (Reply 4):
But not here. I am simply talking about the go-ahead for the 10-gate expansion of T2W, which, as you have pointed out, is certainly not a new concept; it's just that it's finally going to get approved and start happening!

It actually was included in the Master Plan completed in the 1990's. I think they had to wait for a small piece of land to be ceded to the airport from the closing of NTC in 1997, but even that was done several years ago. There is currently a Taxi lineup lot in the expansion space, I believe.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 2):
SANfan, did you stumble onto the webpage or how did you find out about this plan?

I don't know where you live (in San Diego?), but they talk about any airport development constantly in the Union-Tribune. I also hear about it incessantly because I live in Point Loma and there is a free local rag delivered to my door that talks about nothing else but Lindbergh Field and Liberty Station development.


User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2614 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4866 times:



Quoting TheGMan (Reply 7):
SAN needs more runways. Something that Lindbergh field cannot offer.

Bingo!

Quoting SANMAN66 (Reply 5):
There would be less traffic if the parking structure was right next to T-2 where it is planned because all the traffic would be
consolidated in one area.I saw the one concept proposed by the mayor,Steve Peace,etc.

The Peace/Sanders Plan and controversy about traffic congestion on Harbor Dr is why the parking structure is not being built. If check-in facilities go on the north side, then the parking garage would be a waste of money. Leaving the parking structure off the current project list lets the construction start instead of being delayed.



Quoting SANMAN66 (Reply 5):
I still wonder how they plan to tunnel under the runway for the underground
peoplemover system without disrupting flights? I wish they would address this concept,
otherwise it just sounds like another grand pipe dream that only looks good on paper.

Very problematic and expensive. Also, the airlines don't like it as it will delay passengers and add cost. The airlines will pay more as the rents are going up to partially fund the 10 gates, etc.

Quoting Eghansen (Reply 8):
I don't know where you live (in San Diego?), but they talk about any airport development constantly in the Union-Tribune.

Also in Point Loma, but way south of runway heading. I know there's a lot on airports printed, but this item has not been covered by the UT and probably won't be by this week's Beacon.


User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2614 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4854 times:



Quoting TheGMan (Reply 7):
SAN needs more runways. Something that Lindbergh field cannot offer.

I'm not that much of a conspiracy person. But, while the RAA states SAN won't get a second runway, take the Destination Lindbergh Plan and overlay Concept "F" (the Runway 29 "V" proposal floated a few years ago) - you have two runways. It would require MCRD to move out and require lots of mitigation.

Look at the Destination Lindbergh Plan. Why would you need to have the peoplemover originate under the check-in terminal (below the water table) and boar under an unused area prior to going under Runway 27. Wouldn't it be easier and much cheaper tohave the peoplemover start out at the check-in facility (above ground level), go underground near the runway, then surface on the other side south of the taxiway and stop at terminals where people don't need to take thee stories worth of escalators? Why would you want people to stay underground when they can see Sunny San Diego on the way to the terminal? The run could be made with about 20% of the length underground instead of 100%


User currently offlineSANAV8R From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 215 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4831 times:

Well it seems finally they are doing something. I remember when they opened Terminal 2 expansion in the 90s and going to the pre-opening tour and the guide mentioning that the 10 gates would be added within a few years and even moving walkways. It's now almost ten years after.

Looking at the plans, I like the way that they have the proposed security area arranged.

With the additional Ground Transportation center mentioned in the power point, is there any possibility of adding a Trolley or Coaster stop there. That would really be helpful.

As much as I would like to see a new airport elsewhere, I would really miss the great location where I can come from my house in a matter of minutes.

While the entire thing is tentative, but is there any idea as to who will be occupying the ten gates?


User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5400 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4798 times:



Quoting SANAV8R (Reply 11):
With the additional Ground Transportation center mentioned in the power point, is there any possibility of adding a Trolley or Coaster stop there. That would really be helpful.

While the entire thing is tentative, but is there any idea as to who will be occupying the ten gates?

Welcome to A.net, 'AV8R. Nice to have (apparently) another SAN-ophile on board.

Sure, there's always been talk about adding a trolley run to the current terminals at Lindbergh but now with the "BIG" plan (Destination Lindbergh developing the North side of the field) on the table, I'm sure any such planning (regarding the present terminal locations) is dead, or at least very still...

Do a search and you'll find plenty of spec on earlier threads about how those 10 new gates will be used; your guess is as good as anyone else's at this point. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it is possible that some of the gates will be customs/FIS-compatable. You can also see from the plans those gates that will handle 787/777/747s (and big ABs as well) and which will only handle narrow-bodies. There is also speculation that the new gates will be CUTE (and perhaps all gates in at least T2W will be converted to same) so there will not really be "assignments"/ownership of any particular gates by certain cx.

It is probably pretty certain that UA and AS will move to T2W when the expansion is complete and hopefully there will be some new liveries serving SAN by then and using those new gates as well.

bb


User currently offlineSANMAN66 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 789 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4743 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It sort of seems as if the Destination Lindbergh concept is the mayor,Steve Peace,etc.'s way
of derailing the current T-2 expansion.It almost looks like they threw this idea out there at the
last minute to kill the project,because they never addressed how all this would come together
such as costs,and that "tunnel under the runway" idea.Until they address these problems to
the public,I only dismiss it as a pipe dream that would never see the light of day. The 10 gate
expansion,and the elevated roadway (and in my opinion the parking garage) are the only thing that realistically makes sense at this juncture. As for the 10 new gates, I hope UA moves over
there so hopefully AC could have some elbow room to posssibly schedule their flights the way
they want to and hopefully expand.



PSA Gives you a lift!
User currently offlineSANAV8R From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 215 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4704 times:



Quoting SANFan (Reply 12):
As I mentioned in an earlier post, it is possible that some of the gates will be customs/FIS-compatable. You can also see from the plans those gates that will handle 787/777/747s (and big ABs as well) and which will only handle narrow-bodies.

Well I definitely see HA flying their 330s in. Maybe this will finally be the thing SAN needs to get a carrier like PR and bring back BA.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 12):
It is probably pretty certain that UA and AS will move to T2W when the expansion is complete and hopefully there will be some new liveries serving SAN by then and using those new gates as well.

If all of the T1W occupants of UA, AS, and AC move to T2, UA and AC would be joining US and CO and make T2 a *A section of sorts. With an AS move as well, WN would have all of T1. I could see them rehabing it since it was really built for another era but used so heavily.


User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4670 times:

Big version: Width: 912 Height: 589 File size: 555kb

So apparently the T2 expansion will allow for A340's haha
Big version: Width: 919 Height: 595 File size: 888kb

and it seems that SAN expects plenty of 787s after the expansion haha

Quoting TheGMan (Reply 7):
AN needs more runways. Something that Lindbergh field cannot offer.

Not really, if they plan well enough they can get by with one runway, what they need more than a second runway is to extend the existing one which just isn't possible.

Quoting SANAV8R (Reply 14):
Well I definitely see HA flying their 330s in. Maybe this will finally be the thing SAN needs to get a carrier like PR and bring back BA.

I think we will see A330s rapidly as HA takes delivery and gates can handle the plane. But the 787 brings up some interesting plans for international routes, do we know what 787 variants can use the existing SAN runway without penalties?


User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2614 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4570 times:

The above graphics don't show the massive second level roadway/passenger drop-off platform. This platform will extend over 4.5 football fields in front of T2E and T2W. It shows two roadways that have in the range of 7 lanes of one-way traffic. Passengers are to be able to go to kiosks, check, in the go to security via new bridges to T2E and T2W. From the plans, I don't see a way for baggage to be transported from the second level roadway to the bag room. If you have to carry your luggage somewhere, then it's a longer trek than the current surface level situation.
There's a SDCRAA Board meeting today in which they will approve the plan to move forward on contracts and ground breaking this year.


User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5400 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4496 times:

I just finished watching the webcast of the board meeting and they DID approve the design phase of the project. In July, 3 options (of designs) will be presented and voted on for approval. Then contracts will be worked on and, as CAL' said, construction should start in late summer (hopefully.)

It was mentioned that the designs will be flexible and may or may not incorporate intl arrivals options as part of the 10 new gates; it will depend on what the intl-travel outlook is at the time. If the SDIA folks are optimistic that there will be more intl cx interested in SAN (or even increased intl service from current cx at SAN...) then some of the new gates will be capable of accessing new FIS facilities built into the new building!

BTW, it was emphasized that there is NO new parking structure involved in the project.

bb


User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4365 times:



Quoting SANFan (Reply 17):
it will depend on what the intl-travel outlook is at the time. If the SDIA folks are optimistic that there will be more intl cx interested in SAN (or even increased intl service from current cx at SAN...)

And I think any international flights further than Mexico or Canada will depend on whether or not the 787 can operate profitably out of SAN. If a 787-8 can make a profit flying to Europe (maybe asia) then international operations could pick up, maybe a return of BA and maybe even AF or LH


User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2614 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4331 times:

I believe that 6 of the new gates are international swing gates.

As far as who moves, I'd guess the next steps of a potential Destination Lindbergh or reconstruction of Terminal 1 would be the determining factor.

If Terminal 1 is recosntructed, then maybe WN termorarily moves to T2 West when built (this would cause congestion on taxiways). On the other hand, SAN could start with the UA satellite, which would allow WN to stay where they are until the current UA facility was replaced. Most likely this would not provide WN enough gates in the transition.

If Destination Lindbergh happens, the WN would be the first to move to the north side, which they will oppose due to the extra hassle and cost of an underground train to departure gates. It could be Destination Lindbergh will end up with a split operation with WN roughly where they are now with a terminal and parking on the south side. Traffic on Harbor Drive would be OK with a split operation.

Since there are so few connections at SAN (except for WN), maybe alliances don't mean as much. To keep the airport running with the single taxiway the most efficient airlines with the highest gates use should be farther east in the terminal setup.

Starting at the east, this is the best arrangement to maximize runway operations:
1.) Commuters at Commuter Terminal (these aircraft would have to swim upstream on the single taxiway if they were integrated with other operators.
2.) Southwest Airlines
3.) United Airlines (based on frequency to SFO)
4.) Alaska Airlines (based on frequency and gate use)
5.) US Airways (based on frequent service to PHX hub)
6.) Basically everyone else.

Could this be the best layout?
Commuter Terminal - All commuter flights
Terminal 1 Southwest for sure - maybe Alaska
Terminal 2 East - maybe UA and Star airlines CO, AC, US
Terminal 2 West - maybe AA, DL, HA, JB and Internationals.

I'm not sure if those assignments equal the approximate gates of each terminal, but it's a proposal.

In any case, the Airport Authority would do themselves a favor by extending the short dual taxiway they propose with the Terminal 2 West expansion eastward past the current AA gates at Terminal 2 East. This may require reduction in widebody capability at the end of the terminal or even the loss of a gate or two, but will prevent head to head taxing from arrivals and departures headed to/from the expanded Terminal 2 Westt. The last thing SAN needs is to have arrivals roll to the end of the runway to avoid an unnecessary head to head taxing problem.


User currently offlineAnonms From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 618 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4276 times:



Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 19):
Terminal 2 East - maybe UA and Star airlines CO, AC, US
Terminal 2 West - maybe AA, DL, HA, JB and Internationals.

The FIS and AA's Admirals Club are in T2E.



This is my signature.
User currently offlineSANAV8R From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 215 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4234 times:

In all these plans is there any proposal for all the former Teledyne Ryan property? That just seems like wasted space that can be used as more parking, Port Authority operations, cargo, or road expansion.

I can't really see an invasion of European carriers if the 787 is able to fly. Maybe some charter carriers. I'm going to place my bet on Asian carriers, PR, maybe KE or JO. The ties to the Pacific are much stronger than the Atlantic.

Though one thing, I'm surprised that BA never downgraded from a 772 to a 763, seeing as Z4 managed to have no issues with non-stop London flights.


User currently offlineSan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4942 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4197 times:



Quoting SANAV8R (Reply 21):

Though one thing, I'm surprised that BA never downgraded from a 772 to a 763, seeing as Z4 managed to have no issues with non-stop London flights.

Z4 flew those 767s almost completely empty in the belly. They carried no cargo, which was also BA's problem in SAN.

The 777s were weight-restricted, which affected profitability because often, cargo is what makes an international flight profitable. If they had downgraded, it would have actually made the problem worse, because the 767 is less capable cargo-wise (smaller, can't use LD3s, etc.) and they wouldn't have been able to carry ANYTHING on it.

So BA was in the position of flying a 777 half-full and therefore unprofitable (it didn't help that they were having trouble filling the front cabins either) or drop the route. I wish they hadn't, but they dropped SAN.



Scotty doesn't know...
User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5400 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4157 times:



Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 19):
I believe that 6 of the new gates are international swing gates.

Whether gates are int'l-capable or not is one of the options still to be decided; the 6 "swing gates" are described in all aspects of the TDP as "an option."

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 15):
So apparently the T2 expansion will allow for A340's haha...
...and it seems that SAN expects plenty of 787s after the expansion haha

True on both counts, 'captain; no joke.  Wink

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 16):
From the plans, I don't see a way for baggage to be transported from the second level roadway to the bag room

I expect the 2 bridges connecting the elevated roadway to the terminals (T2W and T2E) will include baggage conveyer systems which will deliver the bags to the respective airline facilities on the ground floor of the terminals.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 19):
In any case, the Airport Authority would do themselves a favor by extending the short dual taxiway they propose with the Terminal 2 West expansion eastward

There are options in the Lindbergh Master Plan for revising the taxiways. The SDIA is certainly very aware of the single-taxiway issues, especially as congestion increases.

Quoting SANAV8R (Reply 21):
In all these plans is there any proposal for all the former Teledyne Ryan property? That just seems like wasted space that can be used as more parking, Port Authority operations, cargo, or road expansion.

Yes, again, the Master Plan has options including all that very valuable land at the southwest corner of Lindbergh. There are some historically important buildings (e.g., the one in which the Spirit was built) that need to be decided on, there are matters of who pays for the demolition and clean-up, and I believe there were some recently-settled law suits about it. In any case, that area is very important and will be dealt with. (I know that one option is for RON parking to be located there, along with a widened taxiway B, to permit the BIG aircraft that will hopefully be serving Lindbergh in the future, to use it.

Quoting SANAV8R (Reply 21):
can't really see an invasion of European carriers if the 787 is able to fly. Maybe some charter carriers. I'm going to place my bet on Asian carriers, PR, maybe KE or JO. The ties to the Pacific are much stronger than the Atlantic.

You might think so but you can find numbers on the SAN.org site that show traffic numbers from San Diego to various intercontinental destinations. For example, Europe is twice the market from SAN as Asia; at the time of the last study (2007) SAN-Europe saw over 500 pax a day (each way) and Asia was about 250!

Quoting SANAV8R (Reply 21):
Though one thing, I'm surprised that BA never downgraded from a 772 to a 763

Something in addition to San747s remarks: fleet commonality. At the time, I don't believe BA was flying any 767s to the U.S. (at least to the western part) and I do not believe they would want just a single flight with that equipment. (And I'm also thinking they didn't fly any 767s out of LHR, only LGW.) A BA expert would have to verify this but I think there is something about fleet commonality that kept the 767 from being an option.

bb


User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2614 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4124 times:



Quoting SANAV8R (Reply 21):
In all these plans is there any proposal for all the former Teledyne Ryan property? That just seems like wasted space that can be used as more parking, Port Authority operations, cargo, or road expansion.

In Destination Lindbergh, Teledyne Ryan was a blacked out area at the start. I don't believe it ever became that important in the Destination Lindbergh Plan. Parking, road widening and a staging area for departures could be of value.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 23):
(I know that one option is for RON parking to be located there, along with a widened taxiway B, to permit the BIG aircraft that will hopefully be serving Lindbergh in the future, to use it.

RON parking there would be a disaster as RON aircraft need to get to the gates after the 0630 departures - talk about swimming upstream. There would be now way for those aircraft to get to the gates.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 23):
I expect the 2 bridges connecting the elevated roadway to the terminals (T2W and T2E) will include baggage conveyor systems which will deliver the bags to the respective airline facilities on the ground floor of the terminals.

Have we heard of DIA? Let's hope the same supplier isn't used to route bags to numerous airlines on the same belt system for each wing of T2.


25 Eghansen : The Teledyne Ryan property has some kind of environmental cleanup problem. Other than the cell phone lot, the land is not usable until cleanup is fin
26 DL767captain : Which makes sense why European carriers would try to come back to SAN. There is a break point between LAX and SAN where someone would have to decide
27 SANFan : Very true. That's why another part of that idea, I believe, is a second taxiway (going w/b to as close to the terminal area as possible.) With our ne
28 CALPSAFltSkeds : As soon as the new gates and RON spaces are in service, it should reduce gate problems. SAN has been talking about common gate arrangements, with no
29 Eghansen : Why? The 787 thrust-to-weight ratio is no greater than with the 767, 777 and A330. The 787 is undoubtedly a great airplane, but it is not designed to
30 SANFan : Never say never. (Hint: remember BA, twice? Zoom last year?) That's a pretty healthy market for the likes of BA and LH to completely ignore... And I
31 SANAV8R : I know the statistics omit the many people who drive to LAX, which is a major O&D point. I think if there was some possibility of service, the people
32 Post contains images SANMAN66 : During the recent SCDRAA meeting it was reported that DL has been having some very interesting and fruitful meetings with SDCRAA about some new future
33 SANFan : Stay tuned, indeed! DL has a long history in San Diego (especially through Western), including years of service to HNL and MEX. There is a substantia
34 SANMAN66 : Here's something I found on Mexico flights from SAN: According to Wikipedia, Aeromexico Connect plans to launch a new SAN-Loreto flight on July,2. Tha
35 San747 : Cool to hear... I heard something about this flight- it was supposed to start last year or something, and hopefully, this article is correct. What eq
36 SANMAN66 : Apparently AM has been tranferring some of their low density,mainline routes over to 5D,which is all ERJ-175/E-190 a/c. It would be cool to see an E-
37 SANFan : Good find, SANMAN! Yes, '747, it was applied for last year -- or was it 2007 -- approved, and then (SHOCK!!) nothing ever happened with it. I sure ha
38 CALPSAFltSkeds : While N/S service to Europe would grab lots of traffic, there's lots of competition to move people between SAN and Europe one-stop via numerous hubs
39 Eghansen : AeroMexico has flown SAN-LTO before with a DC-9. They also have flown SAN-MEX and SAN-PVR at times. Their service comes and goes with only SJD consis
40 Chrisair : Enough with T2 already. Someone really needs to expand/renovate/demolish that big circle that WN uses. It's quite possibly the worst airport I've been
41 SANFan : Not to mention GDL, MZT, HMO... "Comes and goes" is putting it mildly! AS has only flown SAN-SJD; HP also flew SAN-SJD, along with their SAN-PVR Satu
42 San747 : If SAN would subsidize the flight like BA asked, we would still be seeing a daily 777. I personally think it would be worth it for SAN to do so, or t
43 CALPSAFltSkeds : the problem is that the satellites weren't built to handle the volumes that WN pushes through its terminal and the security area is basically a hallw
44 Post contains links SANFan : Hi A. I don't know the reasons why SAN was not doing incentives or anything back then. I do know that at the end of 2007 they finally got on the bus
45 SAN88 : Just get WN out of T1 its a DUMP!
46 SANAV8R : A dump, but a money-making dump. I mean the list of things needed is long, the last noticeable work I've seen they did was reconfiguring the bathroom
47 C767P : There are three gates in that annex area, gate 1A makes for a total of 11 WN gates at SAN.
48 SAN88 : LOL hahaha so true, the facilities are inadequate for the passenger volume. Check the digs out on Fridays, Sundays and holidays it’s a mad house. F
49 Chrisair : No. Nothing will help T1. Nothing they do to the escalators will fix the inherent terrible state of that terminal. Fixing the bathrooms was a step up
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Latest Info On Sofia posted Tue Dec 17 2002 11:39:18 by Na
Latest On JetBlue's SoCal Expansion? posted Mon Feb 18 2008 00:51:16 by SANFan
AC Update Their Fleet Info On Their Website. posted Sun Aug 6 2006 19:05:18 by AirCanada014
More Info On Latest Caravelle Crash? posted Wed Sep 8 2004 11:53:11 by Duke
CO: Latest Rumors On International Expansion posted Sat May 15 2004 00:21:22 by Dutchjet
AA #587 Crash, Any Update Info On This Crash Yet? posted Thu Sep 12 2002 04:07:37 by Bobcat
Update 4 U All On Jetsgo And Expansion Plans posted Sun Aug 18 2002 05:44:31 by Layitontheline
More Info On Latest Boeing Needed posted Wed Apr 4 2001 12:26:13 by Singa_air_rulz
Air Canada 621 Info On Crash From 1970 posted Fri Mar 13 2009 23:16:53 by RicardoFG
Current Info On The Tu-204 Series posted Fri Feb 27 2009 21:14:25 by Silverstreak