Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SAN Depending On 787 For International Expansion  
User currently offlineDl767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 1 month 20 hours ago) and read 6446 times:

I took the terminals to tarmac tour at SAN the other day. It was a pretty interesting tour, not the most exciting but it was pretty cool when you're on the bus to be at ground level compared to a 757 (which is way bigger than when you see it from the terminal windows). But what I found the most interesting was when the tour guide started talking about international expansion and brought up the 787. He was saying that SAN is talking seriously with Asian and European carriers who have ordered the 787 to bring it to SAN because they would be able to operate the 787 completely full without penalties. He said they were talking with Lufthansa, Virgin Atlantic, and British Airways, as well as JAL and ANA, the most interesting however was DL (when it was NW). He said Virgin Atlantic and Lufthansa were both interested and in talks with SAN.

Just thought it was interesting that they really want the 787 to come to SAn and it will be interesting to see if any airline decides to bring the 787 in to SAN.

55 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30654 posts, RR: 84
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 month 20 hours ago) and read 6387 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Dl767captain (Thread starter):
Just thought it was interesting that they really want the 787 to come to SAn and it will be interesting to see if any airline decides to bring the 787 in to SAN.

As I recall, the conceptual artwork for the terminal shows a number of 787s parked at the gates.


User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2589 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 month 19 hours ago) and read 6337 times:

This has been discussed before and I believe the 787 cannot operate at max gross takeoff weight from SAN.

The 777-200ER was being flown by BA SAN-LHR and that aircraft has a MGTOW of 656,000 lbs. With thrust of 93,400 per engine, the weight to thrust ratio is 3.51. The aircraft was unable to get a good payload out of SAN on a 4766NM mission, only 61% of its designed range and with a tailwind to boot.

The 787-8 is showing available Trent engines with a max thrust of 69,800 for a 484,000 MGTOW = to a similar 3.46 weight to thrust ration. The 787-9 has a higher ratio of 3.66 with engines of 73,800 and MGTOW of 540,000.

Unless the 787 has some type of short field capability, I don't see much difference between the 777 and 787 capabilities out of SAN. Does anyone have further information on 787 performance?

Is an airline going to take a much more capable aircraft and place it into SAN for a flight that will be weight restricted?

Note that last summer Zoom Air flew a 767-300 SAN-LGW for a few months, but carried no cargo to speak of.


User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5367 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 19 hours ago) and read 6323 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
As I recall, the conceptual artwork for the terminal shows a number of 787s parked at the gates.

I wasn't going to post this yet on A.net, but speak of the devil... Here's a link to the latest Terminal Development Plan presentation (made just 6-24-09) with options for the 10-gate build-out of the West Terminal at SAN!

http://www.san.org/documents/boardmeetings/tdp_agenda_item_3.pdf

Notice on the first couple of drawings, page 4 for example, that they use the 787-900 as the template for the 3 or 4 BIG gates! (I believe gate 43 which is just off the top of the drawing, is also a BIG gate.) Also notice that gate 48 shows an A340-600 template as well!

I assume these are the design options that will be used by the board to make decisions next week at the board meeting of the SDCRAA (on Thursday) about the actual go-ahead for the project!

As far as the OP of this thread, there certainly is no doubt -- never has been -- that the 787 should hopefully be the ultimate saviour for those of us hoping and waiting for intercontinental air service in and out of SAN. All the airlines you mentioned are no surprise either. I am confident, and have posted many times, that SAN should see at least one European service as well as an Asian route or two, in the not-too-distant future and once the folks at Boeing get the 787 off the ground, our chances for service get much better!

bb


User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5367 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 month 16 hours ago) and read 6161 times:



Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 2):
Does anyone have further information on 787 performance?

Here's a link for you CAL'; this was a presentation to the SDCRAA board in July of 2007 by Boeing, specifically talking about various a/c and expected performance out of Lindbergh:

http://www.san.org/documents/airport...20Current%20Product%20Overview.ppt

I realize that even the 787 will have issues with departures from Lindbergh if fully loaded for an intercontinental flight. I don't believe there is an a/c flying today, or anything planned, that could deal with the terrain west of the end of runway 27. That's just the way it is.

However, the 763 that ZX used last year was, given Zoom's business model, about perfect for SAN; as you said, they weren't interested in carrying cargo so they could fill up the gas tanks and the passenger seats and do fine -- and did.

Each airline has slightly different priorities and I remain convinced that with the many a/c options today, plus the upcoming ones (like the 787), something can be made to work satisfactorily for the SAN market.

I hope you find the Boeing presentation interesting and enlightening.

bb


User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8291 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 month 11 hours ago) and read 5955 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

San Diego has sadly missed the Asia-Pacific airline bonannza. Linburgh Field is a nice airport with no expansion possibility with runways that are too short. Why can't the solution be an old Navy or Air Force base which are all over San Diego ? In these years of base closings a big enough replacement airport for intercontinental flights should be fairly easy in such a military town.

User currently onlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16829 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 5846 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 5):
Why can't the solution be an old Navy or Air Force base which are all over San Diego

There are no Air Force bases near San Diego, and the Naval Air Station at North Island is a vital asset to the Navy that also berths Carriers. There's no way a civilian operation could operate from that facility, also Coronado Island could not handle the traffic. The debate has been about Miramar MCAS, however where would the Marines go?.. It's efficient for training purposes to be close to Pendleton and to the Ocean, putting the Marine Corps aircraft 500 miles inland in the desert away from Pendleton and the Ocean would make training that much more expensive.

What does make sense is for the Marines to turn over the Marine Corps Recruit Depot to the City of San Diego, the MCRD is adjacent to the airport and would provide possibly enough land for an additional runway or a location to relocate the terminals. The Marine Corps Recruit Depot could be moved to the closed Fort Ord near Monterey, that's a sprawling facility with training sites located right on the beach. Perfect for Marine Corps training.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineKleiner From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 142 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 5731 times:



Quoting Dl767captain (Thread starter):
He said Virgin Atlantic and Lufthansa were both interested and in talks with SAN.

Could VS operate this route with one of their new A330s, fully-loaded?


User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8291 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (5 years 1 month 7 hours ago) and read 5655 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting STT757 (Reply 6):
What does make sense is for the Marines to turn over the Marine Corps Recruit Depot to the City of San Diego, the MCRD is adjacent to the airport and would provide possibly enough land for an additional runway or a location to relocate the terminals. The Marine Corps Recruit Depot could be moved to the closed Fort Ord near Monterey, that's a sprawling facility with training sites located right on the beach. Perfect for Marine Corps training.

Why couldn't that old government favorite be used," Eminent Domain". Buy some of the residential land around the airport. San Diego needs a runway 3000 feet longer then what they have now, I can't think of a better time then now for "economic stimulus".


User currently onlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16829 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 month 7 hours ago) and read 5585 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 8):
Why couldn't that old government favorite be used," Eminent Domain". Buy some of the residential land around the airport. San Diego needs a runway 3000 feet longer then what they have now, I can't think of a better time then now for "economic stimulus".

We're talking some very pricey real estate, and home owners who can afford a serious legal challenge. It's an urban setting also, which is going to bring up a whole host of environmental issues.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24904 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 5532 times:

San Diego depends on a lot more then just the 787 for service --- the fact that it lives under the shadow of a huge neighbor to the North 100 miles away is a big reason why attracting international service has been a challenge.


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineSan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4941 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (5 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 5514 times:



Quoting Kleiner (Reply 7):

Quoting Dl767captain (Thread starter):
He said Virgin Atlantic and Lufthansa were both interested and in talks with SAN.

Could VS operate this route with one of their new A330s, fully-loaded?

The A330-300 probably couldn't... an A330-200, possibly. From what I understand, the ideal aircraft for intercontinental ops out of SAN is an A340-600 because that should have minimal, if any, restrictions. The problem there is filling up a -600, which is comparable and with some airlines higher capacity than a 747.



Scotty doesn't know...
User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5367 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 5499 times:



Quoting Dl767captain (Thread starter):
He said they were talking with Lufthansa, Virgin Atlantic, and British Airways, as well as JAL and ANA, the most interesting however was DL (when it was NW). He said Virgin Atlantic and Lufthansa were both interested and in talks with SAN

There have been many threads on the subject.

LH, VS, BA, NH and PR would probably be the most likely foreign flags to start service to SAN in the near-term future, potentially even before the 787 starts scheduled service. (Not all of the carriers of course but 2 or 3 wouldn't surprise me at all.) And, interestingly enough, I have a feeling DL may in fact surprise lots of folks here one of these days...

Remember that there are constantly talks happening between airport authorities and air carriers around the world. It is very safe to say that "so-and-so" has had discussions with "such-and-such". All airlines have entire departments devoted to nothing but negotiating and talking with potential new destinations; and all major airports, SAN definitely included, have teams of Route Development folks whose job is to secure new service from existing and new carriers. That all being said:

>PR is "just" waiting for the FAA safety audit (later this year) and working out agreements with Canadian authorities regarding the MNL-YVR-SAN rights and would start flying either their A-343 or new T7 (without any load restrictions since they would only need fuel for the 3-hour flight from SAN to YVR) hopefully in 2010?
>VS has apparently been "interested" in SAN since BA suspended -- their term, not mine -- service at Lindbergh in Oct of 2003. I would bet they are sniffing around now, since ZX showed that the SAN-LON market could be successful. Any talks involving VS are rather low profile.
>NH rumors go back years. I think they are interested in connecting SAN with Asia; and they DO have a lot of 787s on order!
>LH has had confirmed "higher profile" meetings with SAN folks over the years and I would imagine they are perhaps one of the better possibilities to be the next foreign flag to become a tenant at Lindbergh Field -- once they get back into a U.S. expansion mode!  crossfingers 
>BA is probably not done with SAN; they've tried twice already and maybe the 3rd time will... I also think the ZX "experiment" must have impressed -- and educated -- some people over at British Airways and I bet they would hate to lose out to Virgin -- or anyone else -- as the next carrier to fly between San Diego and London!
>DL has long sleeves and I think they might have something up them for SAN. I can't remember if I posted anything here on A.net back in April but I did on other boards, regarding comments made at SDCRAA's monthly board meeting. I have also heard for a few years that NW was meeting "more than once" with the SAN folks, allegedly about Asia routes (and maybe also AMS [?]; look at what they've done in PDX) particularly when they ordred 787s. Now that history is all in the hands of Delta, plus whatever other ideas they may have, so I remain excited about what we could see from them...

bb


User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2589 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 5477 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 8):
Why couldn't that old government favorite be used," Eminent Domain". Buy some of the residential land around the airport. San Diego needs a runway 3000 feet longer then what they have now, I can't think of a better time then now for "economic stimulus".

The runway length isn't the biggest problem, rather the hills on both end of the single runway.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 6):
The debate has been about Miramar MCAS, however where would the Marines go?.. It's efficient for training purposes to be close to Pendleton and to the Ocean, putting the Marine Corps aircraft 500 miles inland in the desert away from Pendleton and the Ocean would make training that much more expensive.

There should be a new BaRACk coming soon and who knows what that will bring. San Diego never thought the Navy would leave and now the Marines have nowhere to go? Marines could share Miramar if they moved the touch and goes out to the desert. 500 miles?? That gets you into NM, halfway into UT and halfway into NV from SD. It's under 100 miles (about 10 minutes at cruise) to the Imperial Valley. Housing costs are way too high n SD for the military and MCAS Miramar has to live with its neighbors. The Joint Strike Fighter will be even noisier than current aircraft and the design may preclude vertical takeoff training at Miramar due to extreme noise. Does it make sense to bring a larger, more noisy aircraft (that can't train fully) into facility near a growing civilian population.Helos could stay if they have any reason to be close to Pendleton.
Sure, close MCRD, then go ahead and buy the several square miles of expensive homes so we can have a second runway that experts say will only add 15% to the capacity of the airport. If we takeoff over the Midway area maybe those flights to Europe and Asia can begin with full payloads, but at what cost?


User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4086 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (5 years 1 month 5 hours ago) and read 5472 times:

There are a whole bunch of airports 'depending' on the 787 to jumpstart their international services. I think the San Diego one is very, very compelling. Less compelling, but on the list nonetheless, is Boston. The feeling for years has been than Logan won't get nonstop service to/from Asia on anything but a 787.

It's probably going to be years before many of the domestic airlines here would be ready to buy and operate the 787, so the delay from Boeing in not altogether troubling. But I've always thought ANA would be the first carrier to launch some new U.S. services, and they just happen to be a kick-off customer for the 787.


User currently offlineSANMAN66 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 788 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 month 4 hours ago) and read 5366 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting San747 (Reply 11):
From what I understand, the ideal aircraft for intercontinental ops out of SAN is an A340-600 because that should have minimal, if any, restrictions. The problem there is filling up a -600, which is comparable and with some airlines higher capacity than a 747.

That's interesting.Considering the A340-600 is a looooong plane.VS and LH could possibly
fill these up if they only flew once or twice a week from SAN. As I had said in another thread,
LH,VS,BA,(I'm referring to European carriers only),can get the passengers if they would tap
into San Diego's cruise ship industry.Zoom had plans to do this before they went under.As
for pax demand for Asia,PR seems to believe there is because of the large Filipino population here in San Diego.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 13):
Sure, close MCRD, then go ahead and buy the several square miles of expensive homes so we can have a second runway that experts say will only add 15% to the capacity of the airport. If we takeoff over the Midway area maybe those flights to Europe and Asia can begin with full payloads, but at what cost?

Unfortunately,that won't happen. There are several historical landmarks at MCRD that
cannot be razed.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 13):
Marines could share Miramar if they moved the touch and goes out to the desert.

I've always believed that Miramar could be shared,the Air Force has no problems sharing with civilian airports,the marines just need to be convinced it can be done.(I'm sorry.This
is a different topic to be discussed another time. I digress).

Quoting SANFan (Reply 12):
>DL has long sleeves and I think they might have something up them for SAN. I can't remember if I posted anything here on A.net back in April but I did on other boards, regarding comments made at SDCRAA's monthly board meeting. I have also heard for a few years that NW was meeting "more than once" with the SAN folks, allegedly about Asia routes (and maybe also AMS [?]; look at what they've done in PDX) particularly when they ordred 787s. Now that history is all in the hands of Delta, plus whatever other ideas they may have, so I remain excited about what we could see from them...

I still believe that all the talks between the SDCRAA,and the int'l carriers as of late are just the tip of the iceberg.There's something more going on than we know about.One of the things that sparked my interest included in the T-2E buildout was the ramp tower.I've
only saw those at hub airports.It appears that the SDIA is expecting some heavy traffic,
or more larger a/c once the new gates come on line,and DL's got something brewing.
One last thing. I strongly believe the SDCRAA would not waste their time pursuing these
int'l carriers,knowing full well that the current a/c they have would have issues flying out of
SAN due to that big ugly terrain at the end of rwy,2-7.They are much smarter than that.
I have a realistic scenario: NW dropped a SEA-LHR route not too long ago due to oversaturation of that route.I'm sure DL holds that slot now.What if they decided to
give that route to SAN? They could send their 763's or 764's nonstop to London from SAN.No problem! Could this be part of DL future plan? Could be a strong possiblity! As
I mentioned earlier,VS or LH could possibly fill up an A340-600 if it was only operated
once or twice a week.Any new int'l flight from SAN doesn't have to be daily,it could be
weekly and still do fine.
 crossfingers 



PSA Gives you a lift!
User currently offlineSANMAN66 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 788 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (5 years 1 month 2 hours ago) and read 5289 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This just posted in another thread: "LH axes PDX". Could this be the reason
why the SDCRAA meetings with LH have stepped up a notch? Where will that
extra a/c go once they suspend service to PDX?



PSA Gives you a lift!
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24904 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (5 years 1 month 2 hours ago) and read 5279 times:



Quoting SANMAN66 (Reply 16):
Where will that extra a/c go once they suspend service to PDX?

Not SAN. If PDX cant make it or be nursed any longer, they are not about to take the financial exposure to start a new SAN route from scratch.

Anyhow LH has been parking planes including A340s.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (5 years 1 month 2 hours ago) and read 5276 times:



Quoting Dl767captain (Thread starter):
I took the terminals to tarmac tour at SAN the other day.

Where do I go at SAN to take this tour? How much does it cost?



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8291 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (5 years 1 month ago) and read 5172 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Any chance of an airport east of San Diego in the desert ?

User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2589 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5087 times:



Quoting SANMAN66 (Reply 15):
NW dropped a SEA-LHR route not too long ago due to oversaturation of that route.I'm sure DL holds that slot now.What if they decided to
give that route to SAN? They could send their 763's or 764's nonstop to London from SAN.No problem! Could this be part of DL future plan? Could be a strong possiblity!

It would seem that a US carrier would serve Europe from one of its hubs or to an alliance hub. Wouldn't that exclude DL from trying SAN-LON? SAN-AMS or SAN-CDG might make more sense, but the 763ER might not make that route and would be limited to probably no cargo.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 4):
However, the 763 that ZX used last year was, given Zoom's business model, about perfect for SAN; as you said, they weren't interested in carrying cargo so they could fill up the gas tanks and the passenger seats and do fine -- and did.

Each airline has slightly different priorities and I remain convinced that with the many a/c options today, plus the upcoming ones (like the 787), something can be made to work satisfactorily for the SAN market.

I hope you find the Boeing presentation interesting and enlightening.

Zoom lasted how many months?
Thanks for the presentation. The most interesting fact was that the 737-900ER takes a weight penalty out of SAN of 7,000 lbs. meaning it has less range than the 738. Wow, if that doesn't tell you those hills are restrictive, I don't know what will.
The 787 has virtually the same range as the 772ER, which couldn't make money with weight restrictions on the shortest Europe run SAN-LON. By the way, I don't want to be on the aircraft or under the flight path of a 747-400 or 747-8 routed on a SAN-AKL, SAN-TLV or SAN-PEK non-stop.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5064 times:



Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 20):
Zoom lasted how many months?

IIRC, did they last only one or two flights or something like that? (yes, I am seriously asking...so please correct me if I am dead wrong....)

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 20):
The most interesting fact was that the 737-900ER takes a weight penalty out of SAN of 7,000 lbs. meaning it has less range than the 738.

While that may be true, AS does not seem to have any issues using the type at SAN.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2589 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5041 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 21):
Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 20):
The most interesting fact was that the 737-900ER takes a weight penalty out of SAN of 7,000 lbs. meaning it has less range than the 738.

While that may be true, AS does not seem to have any issues using the type at SAN.

Neither does CO, but it doesn't take off near MGTOW going to IAH or EWR or to the Pacific Northwest. The 739ER has a 13,000 lbs greater GTOW than the 738 with the same engines. So it takes more runway and apparently can't climb out of SAN with a full load. Of course, it looks like AS didn't buy the ER model, so it has a lower GTOW than the ER version and a shorter designed range.

[Edited 2009-07-03 23:00:10]

User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4996 times:



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 18):
Where do I go at SAN to take this tour? How much does it cost?

Go to http://www.sanplan.com/signup_airfield_tour.asp Like i said, it's not the most exciting tour but it is pretty interesting, try and go to the morning tour if you can, there is a lot more going on.


What about someone like DL using a 777 to go SAN-ATL-LHR (or other type of aircraft) kind of like they do ATL-LAX-SYD on a 772LR. It might get them out of a weight issue


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2073 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4993 times:

SAN expecting to get long haul international flights from the 787 is silly. SAN marginalized itself by refusing to establish a better airport facility, limiting the economic viability of the routes by making it difficult to take off with a full load. There is no indication that a 787 will be able to operate to Europe fully loaded either and it is even less likely to make it to Asia.

The proximity to LAX hurts but if they had a world class facility there would probably have been a few flights. Just because the 787 has a lower fuel burn than equivalent sized aircraft is probably not enough to make it profitable to fly international non-stops to SAN. The improvement in fuel economy is of course still not precisely known but the consensus has been that the "20% efficiency" improvement figure was over the 767-200, a not particularly fuel efficient plane that is rarely used for long international flights anymore and a large chunk of the 20% was in lower maintenance costs. The actual fuel burn per seat improvement over a 767-300 or an A330 could quite probably be less than 7%, especially if the airlines go with 8 abreast seating.

I am sure that airport officials are making the 787 pitch to carriers that ordered them but it is still a tough sell. It is mostly an excuse for not building a better airport.


25 SANMAN66 : I am sorry to have to repeat myself. This has been discussed in way too many posts on "a-net".Once again.San Diego just don't have the options or spa
26 Jfk777 : Whatever happened to teh plan to share a new airport with Tijuana Mexico, the north side being teh USA and the South being Mexico ?
27 STT757 : It's all mountains, you would need to go about 200 miles to find flat land. That's a no go, it would be an absolute nightmare. No offense to our frie
28 Post contains links CALPSAFltSkeds : Hello, but NRT is a "hub" for DL/.NW while CDG and AMS are hubs for Skyteam. That still might happen and in fact the High Speed Rail advocates are th
29 DL767captain : Refuse? More like they have tried countless times and there are no real viable alternatives. SAN can make it work if they try, mostly by undercutting
30 CALPSAFltSkeds : There are quite a few airlines who could make SAN-LHR work on a one-stop basis, with or without an aircraft change.. AA via DFW 777/763, JFK 777, ORD
31 SANMAN66 : I thought you were talking about FROM a US hub. That comes up from time to time.There's the security issues to deal with.The biggest problem with sha
32 CALPSAFltSkeds : According to Wikipedia TIJ is running at 40% of capacity. With SAN not at capacity yet, there would be plenty of growth with two single runway airpor
33 SANFan : The debate continues as to the real reasons why BA "suspended" (their term) SAN-LHR but there are those - myself included - who believe that weight l
34 SANMAN66 : This came up in another post a while back about an East Elliott airport. The only way that the airport could work there is if Miramar got rid of thei
35 San747 : Not in this economy. ONT is in the middle of probably the worst hit area of the entire state, and I'd venture to say maybe the even the entire countr
36 SANMAN66 : That's right! I forgot about BA pulling out of DTW.That could possibly work.Or what about a LHR-SAN-PIT-LHR route? PIT was another former BA route. I
37 MAH4546 : DTW and PIT can return to the BA network using AA 757s once ATI is in place. A routing like LHR-SAN-PIT-LHR is one of the stupidest thing I've ever h
38 BMI727 : BA does a lot of that sort of thing in the Caribbean and Middle East. I think that it is a remote possibility for the US, but still possible. I think
39 SANMAN66 : What may seem like a stupid idea doesn't necessarily mean is a stupid idea to the airlines.BA had a similar routing something like, IAH-DTW-LHR,befor
40 Trvlr : You're probably never going to see "circle trips" by European airlines with multiple stops in U.S. destinations again. It's too costly without local t
41 AirframeAS : BA tried this via PHX with a 772 and it didn't work and pulled out of SAN entirely. What makes you think this will work now? Also to add, ONT is one
42 MAH4546 : Yes, a routing like LHR-PIT-SAN-LHR is a stupid idea to the airlines. A routing of LHR-DTW-IAH-DTW-LHR is not stupid, because it requires little back
43 SANMAN66 : That was not a circle flight. It was SAN-PHX-LHR-PHX. If you read my earlier post,that flight became a nonstop SAN-LHR flight before BA pulled out.
44 BMI727 : The basic idea is the same - fill a single plane with pax for two destinations. Why couldn't they serve SAN as a tag-on to a flight to LAS or YYC? Th
45 AirframeAS : You didn't mention a 'circle flight'....whatever that means.... I believe I said that BA was in SAN via PHX. Of course, it was LHR-PHX-SAN-PHX-LHR. T
46 LAXintl : ONT would have significantly greater demand as it falls within the Los Angeles MSA. As is LA can support 9 daily nonstops to London, so some portion
47 BMI727 : Exactly, which is why all of this is purely hypothetical. Global alliances and codesharing render this type of thing largely unnecessary.
48 AirframeAS : Agreed. I think it was wise for them to pull out and keep the PHX service. Besides, if one wanted to fly on BA, they can go to PHX for that.
49 SANMAN66 : Circle Flight,or "round-robin": LHR-SAN-PHX-LHR. Tag-on flight: SAN-PHX-LHR-PHX-SAN That flight did not begin as a nonsop flight. It started as a tag
50 LAXintl : LAX is not the issue. Its SAN, and its inability to profitabliy support a flight. If you want to avoid LAX, you can alternately route via SFO, PHX, D
51 SANMAN66 : I'm only using BA as an example. Remember we had ZOOM using a 763 nonstop SAN-LGW just last year,but unfortunately,they folded.The loads were reporte
52 LAXintl : And for all we know, SAN bled money for them also. I don't think having the bodies in seats is necessarily the issue from SAN. Look at SAS at SEA and
53 CALPSAFltSkeds : The thought was to add a single in and out at ONT to add loads to a SAN-LHR flight and allow the aircraft to depart with a full load. I find all the
54 AirframeAS : I had it backwards, my mistake.
55 SANMAN66 : Once again, I really don't believe freight,or cargo was one of the primary reasons for their pullout. Yes,there was lack of premium seats that went u
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...
EWR Gaining On JFK For International Flights? posted Thu Jul 8 2004 23:41:28 by Cory6188
Boeing Says 787 On Track For June Power-on posted Tue May 20 2008 00:18:09 by Oykie
Boeing 787 On Target For First Delivery-Mike Bair posted Tue Jun 19 2007 15:12:03 by NYC777
CO: Latest Rumors On International Expansion posted Sat May 15 2004 00:21:22 by Dutchjet
Biggest International Expansion On ARN Ever! posted Fri Mar 26 2004 18:27:29 by Pera
1 Carry On For International Flights? posted Thu Oct 5 2000 03:02:21 by ILUV767
JQ Considering Yped For International Flights posted Mon Jun 15 2009 18:53:05 by QFMel
Official. RAH E190's To Operate For YX..expansion? posted Thu May 21 2009 14:07:01 by N917me
Is SNN Pre-clearance Still On Schedule For July 1? posted Sat May 16 2009 14:26:23 by Lrgt
Chinese Airlines Down On 787 Performance posted Fri Mar 13 2009 15:48:24 by Observer