Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Future Of SAN?  
User currently offlineusctrojan18 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 92 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4924 times:

A month ago, new San Diego mayor Bob Filner said in his state of the city address that he would push for a trolley to SAN (I was surprised there was no post about it) and could be complete by 2015. While some people are in favor of this idea, others want the trolley expanded to other parts of the city before the airport. But, this it had me thinking about the future of my hometown airport.

The reason why isn't there a construction crew building this line, is the unknown future of the airport in the next 10-20 years. Even with the Green Build, SAN has alot of room to improve. Some say thee terminals should be moved to the north side of the airport and have a large intermodal transit center with the trolley, amtrak, coaster, possible HSR and airport terminal. Others say SAN just needs T1 remodeled, a connection to the commuter terminal and trolley connection to the terminals or build the intermodal center and connect to the south terminals with a people mover or shuttle?And of course, few still believe in the new airport at MCAS Miramar that was defeated in a vote in 2006.

But I want to know your opinion, should the city go ahead and build a trolley line to the terminal along Harbor Dr.? or build the intermodal center on the north side of the field and have a people mover/shuttle connect to the current terminals? or just move the terminals to the north side of the field? and for the few, will voters one day approve an international airport at Miramar? What is your opinion on this debate A.net?

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/...-filner-trolley-san-diego-airport/ - UT Story

[Edited 2013-02-19 16:17:48]

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinehawaiian717 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3192 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4568 times:

I'm not sure I really see the purpose of building a transit center on the north side of the field. The airport is already close to downtown, which is basically a big transit hub, and also close to the Old Town Transit Center. Instead, I'd build a trolley line that originates at Santa Fe Depot/America Plaza, follows Harbor Drive to the airport terminals, then continues to Rosecrans and back to Old Town. The problem I see is that Harbor and Rosecrans are pretty busy and would likely be hurt by giving up one or more lanes to the trolley (unless the trolley is able to pull enough cars off the road to compensate).

I do remember a proposal to build T3 on the north side and Southwest could move there, but I haven't heard about that in a long time. What might make more sense and keep the passenger operations on the south side could be to move the facilities that are currently between T1 and the Commuter Terminal and build something there. Though I can see how having a passenger terminal on the north side would alleviate traffic congestion on Harbor by moving some of it to Pacific Hwy. But it's isolated location would make it tough for interline connections, which is why it made sense to me that WN was proposed for the north side T3, since they don't interline (other than AirTran, which doesn't serve SAN, and Volaris, and that deal is apparently ending soon).

The other question is, are more gates even needed? I recall hearing a while back that the Green Build expansion to T2 would get us close to the number of gates that would be needed for the number of flights that could reasonably be handled on our single runway, anyway. A T1 renovation would be nice.

I think alternative airport proposals (and Miramar was the only one that made sense to me) are pretty much dead right now. Lindbergh is it for the near future.


User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4271 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4529 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I haven't been through SAN since January 5th, but I do remember two things -- T-2 being in total gridlock and there being no freakin way of getting a Green Line spur over to the airport terminals without crossing the runway.

Sorry -- I don't see any way of pulling it off.


User currently offlineusctrojan18 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 92 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4424 times:

Well, the plans were to 1. Build a tunnel under the runway 2. Build a line from little italy/santa fe depot, and build it along Harbor Dr. either on the road, elevated rail, or tunnel 3. Build a line from oldtown along rosecrans like hawaiian717 said and go around the west end of the airport to the the terminals. Either way it is possible to build a trolley to the terminal, the question is 1. should they invest in the current airport format and build the line or 2. build the north side transit center.

User currently offlinechrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 2104 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4412 times:

Quoting usctrojan18 (Thread starter):
Others say SAN just needs T1 remodeled

No. SAN does not "just need T1 remodeled." It needs T1 demolished. It's a terrible, awful, almost third-world terminal. It's an awful place to change planes and it's an awful place to wait out a delay. It's even worse when there are many delays and you're stuck, or when a cruise ship disgorges 4,000 people and they all happen to be flying Southwest home. The WN wing is called the Circle of Death for a reason.

Quoting usctrojan18 (Thread starter):
But I want to know your opinion, should the city go ahead and build a trolley line to the terminal along Harbor Dr.? o
Quoting hawaiian717 (Reply 1):
The problem I see is that Harbor and Rosecrans are pretty busy and would likely be hurt by giving up one or more lanes to the trolley (unless the trolley is able to pull enough cars off the road to compensate).

As if the traffic isn't bad enough on Rosecrans and Harbor. This would make it practically impossible to get to SAN at certain times of the day. Unless they ran the tracks down the middle of Rosecrans and Harbor so you don't lose a traffic lane.


User currently offlineSANAV8R From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 215 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4343 times:

I know that monorails are laughed upon, but could it be a serious contender? Have it start at Liberty Station and then stop at T2, T1, then have the line cross Harbor to the Rental Car center, then Cruise Ship Terminal and then they could put a maintenance/terminus where that Office Depot is on E

User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3997 times:

Quoting usctrojan18 (Thread starter):
The reason why isn't there a construction crew building this line, is the unknown future of the airport in the next 10-20 years.

The airport will be there in 50 years. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. However, that doesn't mean there won't be two airports in 50 years.

Quoting usctrojan18 (Thread starter):
Some say thee terminals should be moved to the north side of the airport and have a large intermodal transit center with the trolley, amtrak, coaster, possible HSR and airport terminal.

Why would you spend several Billion dollars and toss out current terminals so a handful of airport users can have better trolley access?

Quoting usctrojan18 (Thread starter):
But I want to know your opinion, should the city go ahead and build a trolley line to the terminal along Harbor Dr.?

There's a bus. Use it.

Quoting usctrojan18 (Reply 3):
1. Build a tunnel under the runway

Non starter. Single runway, single point of failure. That tunnel collapses and its over.

Quoting usctrojan18 (Reply 3):
2. Build a line from little italy/santa fe depot, and build it along Harbor Dr. either on the road, elevated rail, or tunnel

So talk to the transit people in San Diego about it. Airports don't build trolley systems.

Quoting usctrojan18 (Reply 3):
3. Build a line from oldtown along rosecrans like hawaiian717 said and go around the west end of the airport to the the terminals.

Again, at what cost and for how many riders?

Quoting usctrojan18 (Reply 3):
Either way it is possible to build a trolley to the terminal, the question is 1. should they invest in the current airport format and build the line or 2. build the north side transit center.

Since the planes cant get to the north side of the airport without crossing the runway, I think you have your answer.

Quoting hawaiian717 (Reply 1):
The other question is, are more gates even needed? I recall hearing a while back that the Green Build expansion to T2 would get us close to the number of gates that would be needed for the number of flights that could reasonably be handled on our single runway, anyway. A T1 renovation would be nice.

Agreed. Rebuild T1 with the same number of gates and be done with it. How much can a single runway support anyway without hellish delays. Airports need to stop overbuilding their terminal facilities. Airlines won't schedule flights if they can't get a gate.

[Edited 2013-02-20 07:09:49]

User currently offlinecageyjames From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 321 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3953 times:

Phoenix has the same problem with their light rail being offsite across the runways. The solution seems to be Sky Train.

http://skyharbor.com/phxskytrain/


User currently offlineKleiner From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 142 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3831 times:

There's plenty of room along the north side of harbor. But if you want to take the trolley, hop on one of the free rental car shuttles then get off walk across the street to the trolley station.

User currently offlineDrmlnr1 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3464 times:

On the SAN airport's page it has a master plan. One of the ideas is that if MCRD were to ever close, SAN would attempt to buy it, demolish it, and build a new non-parallel runway. I like that idea. SAN really needs a new runway, T-1 demolished, and T-2E updated. T-2W is perfect just the way it it. With the green build set to open in just months, it's a step in the right direction, but there are more issues that need to be addressed: space, a new runway, just to name a few. Personally, they would do a better job if they built an airport a few miles on the ocean so they can have 24 hr take offs, more runways, and no land issues.


Flying is relaxing!
User currently offlineDFWHeavy From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 560 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3033 times:

Oh no...building in the ocean is a no-go! Heaven forbid we disturb a few fish! *sarcasm*

But the left loonies will be dead serious about that.



Christopher W Slovacek
User currently offlineCoronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1597 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2853 times:

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 10):
Oh no...building in the ocean is a no-go! Heaven forbid we disturb a few fish! *sarcasm*

But the left loonies will be dead serious about that.

Lindbergh Filed is built up from dredging the bay and use to be tidal flats. You can build airports in shallow harbor waters, but if you're talking about building an artificial island out at sea, you'll find that the continental shelf drops off to deeply at the San Diego coast to do what your talking about.



Uncle SAN at your service!
User currently offlinesan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4942 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2730 times:

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 10):

But the left loonies will be dead serious about that.

Let's keep politics out of this, can we? No one is arguing that, and there are plenty of good reasons why we can't build a KIX in San Diego.



Scotty doesn't know...
User currently offlineDrmlnr1 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2673 times:

SAN needs a major overhaul, bigger than the green build. What ideas does everyone have????


Flying is relaxing!
User currently offline777ord From United States of America, joined May 2010, 496 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2675 times:

As someone who flies in/out of SAN weekly, sometimes more. ANYTHING that helps add to the services/ amenities etc... of SAN (or any airport for that matter) I SUPPORT! Would adding a trolly stop to the airport help at all? Perhaps... But, from my experience, if you're on vacation, you've rented a car. If you're going for a cruise, you can literally walk to the terminal, or a quick taxi. Or, if none of those work, someone picks you up. the parking at SAN isn't really as big as you'd expect as a significant amount of SAN traffic is drop off. I see more rent-a-car drop offs then I do taxi's. In over 62 trips this past year in/out of san, I have taken a taxi twice. GF picked me up 99% of the time, and walked 3 times.

It's a nice idea, it's something to seriously consider, but, its not practical as the transit system is pathetic. It goes nowhere really important (fashion Valley Mall.. Oh wow!) or frequently, it's schedule is horrible and can be inefficient. I only take the trolly if I've wasted 3 hours of my life watching the Chargers loose. LOL!

If they WERE to make the service happen. They'd have to make it go to places like PB where the college folk (mostly) live, and then onward to USD/SDSU/UCSD etc.... This again is by trolly, not bus or a standard train.

Regarding a previous poster on T-2. That traffic will significantly change once the two-level drop off zones are complete. Which cannot happen fast enough! Additionally, UA will move ALL operations (including a NEW UA club) to T-2, opening up most of T-1 to DL and allow for WN to have overflow.


Oh please oh please allow for multi-terminal integration!!!!


User currently offlinepsa1011 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 295 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2619 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 777ord (Reply 14):
Regarding a previous poster on T-2. That traffic will significantly change once the two-level drop off zones are complete. Which cannot happen fast enough! Additionally, UA will move ALL operations (including a NEW UA club) to T-2, opening up most of T-1 to DL and allow for WN to have overflow.

Interesting, is DL building a Sky Club in T1?


User currently offlineusctrojan18 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 92 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2518 times:

Quoting 777ord (Reply 14):
They'd have to make it go to places like PB where the college folk (mostly) live, and then onward to USD/SDSU/UCSD etc.... This again is by trolly

The mid coast trolley extension will connect USD and UCSD to the trolley system. It should be built in the next 10 years. And there already is a connection on the Green Line to SDSU. However, an extension to Mission Beach and PB would be great for tourist (and locals) and maybe make the trolley extension to the airport worth it, especially for tourist. When I travel to DC on vacation I stay with my uncle near Silver Spring, MD and we use the metro to get around to the most of DC. So if the San Diego trolley does have an extension to the beaches, along with already stops to SDSU, Stadiums, Gaslamp and most of downtown, would an airport extension be worth it? Especially if these lines could be a possibility in the next 10-20 years. Especially if the T1 is rebuilt and the terminals won't be relocated.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 831 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2379 times:

Quoting Drmlnr1 (Reply 9):
One of the ideas is that if MCRD were to ever close, SAN would attempt to buy it, demolish it, and build a new non-parallel runway.

You can't demolish it. More than half of that base and the vast majority of the buildings are on the National Register of Historic Places.

Quoting Drmlnr1 (Reply 13):
SAN needs a major overhaul, bigger than the green build. What ideas does everyone have????

Airports can't print money and investment needs to be spread out over time. If you start dumping a ton of money into that airport the costs of operating there will skyrocket and you'll be too cash strapped to do anything else. Open the new terminal and sit for 10 years while you pay down the debt and see what happens. Replace the older terminal at year 15 and wait another 10. Maybe you get lucky and in that 20-25 years a military installation closes. I'd say the issue is less pressing than it was a few years ago.


Quoting 777ord (Reply 14):
opening up most of T-1 to DL and allow for WN to have overflow.

Why would Delta move to T1? That makes no sense.


User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5412 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2321 times:

AS of right now, Lindbergh Field IS the airport for San Diego. Period. Everything that's being built, and being planned, is based on that premise. IF Miramar should someday be relinquished by the military folks, AND if all that virgin land to the east of it is still available at that time, perhaps the situation will be re-examined by the community. There's really no point in even thinking about anything else at this time.

The "official" word about capacity at Lindbergh is, I believe, spoken of as ~ 60-65 gates. (This is based on runway capacity, forecasts of airplane size, LFs, etc. Studies were done years ago and may be off by a bit now but the maximum number of gates is probably still fairly accurate.) That's just a few more than we will have when the Green Build opens. (That will give us 4 CT gates, 19 gates in T1, and 32 in T2 for a total of 55 gates.)

There's a lot of talk about the future of T1 -- also including other land now available on the south side of the runway -- and a study of options has been funded and started. There is not much discussion any more of rebuilding the airline terminals on the north side of the field. When taking into account that the Green Build is cosing $1B, and who knows what the T1 replacement will cost, I think it's fair to assume that nobody will suggest abandoning them to start over on the north side!

The SDCRAA folks ARE building the Consolidated Car Rental Facility on the north side of the field so it wouldn't be a huge endeavor to expand that into an Inter-modal Transit Center. That is still being discussed. But as part of the rental car facility, they are building a REAL service road from the north side to the present terminals (on the south side) and there will be common-use buses (airport-operated I believe) running continually between the Harbor Drive and Pacific Highway sides of the airport.

Since there will be constant connectivity between north and south anyway, a trolley, if added at Lindbergh, would undoubtedly be located (fairly easily and even cheaply?) on the north side of Lindbergh.

My guess is that the airline pax terminals will stay where they are with T1 being re-born in a few years, with probably a few additional gates than the 19 it has now. And there will be some sort of transit center on the north side built as part of the new car rental facility. All surface transportation including the trolley, city transit and other buses, and possibly even Amtrak will call there. It will be a pretty neat package of transportation convenience. (And should our cruise industry ever get going again, those facilities are only about 1 1/2 miles down Pacific Highway!)

bb


User currently offlineusctrojan18 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 92 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2304 times:

Also, if after the 787 works out its kinks and starts to become a common plane, if there is more 787 service to SAN (that we have been waiting for) will SAN need more international gates? Because it only has 2 and they aren't really big enough for 2 wide-bodies. I mean the 777 takes up most of the space, and this doesn't even include the Volaris and Canada flights that operate out of 20 and 21. Would SAN add more international gates if the go remodel T1?

User currently offlinehhslax2 From Bahrain, joined Jan 2012, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2291 times:

It would be nice if the rental car buses were consolidated. No need for each of the companies at the rental car facility or along Pacific Highway to have their own buses going out with 1 or 2 people.

User currently offlineDrmlnr1 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2222 times:

If miramar does close, you will have a lot of NIMBYs. But there is one major plus side to having the intl airport on the old miramar property: there's a lot of space for terminals, etc.


Flying is relaxing!
User currently offlineusctrojan18 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 92 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2054 times:

Another plus to the Miramar Airport is that it is right next to the AMTRAK/COASTER line and possibly the HSR line in 20-30 years. It would also push even more for a trolley line up to Miramar/Mira Mesa. But, even with all of this i think Lindbergh is should be San Diego's only airport for the next 50 years. Which is why a trolley should be built to the terminals, but thats just my opinion, and I have no idea what San Diego aviation will look like in 50 years.

User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2623 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1946 times:

To move terminals to the north side of SAN you either need an underground train to transport passengers from the new terminal to the gates that would remain on the south side OR you need a full length parallel taxiway on the north side. MCRD isn't giving up the taxiway land and the Airport Authority says they are not seeking that land, so don;'t look for aircraft parking on the north side. Expense and water table problems would probably preclude an train under Runway 27, just to serve a trolley and Amtrac. And how many people would transfer from an airplane to Amtrac, which goes to LA?

A trolley to SAN would have a lot of problems, including the fact that the occasional taxiing of Coast Guard aircraft across Harbor Drive would be impossible if electric lines are installed for trolleys. There just isn't enough room and would be very expensive as most would be aerial - ridership on the current bus isn't that great and I question how many people will ride public transit to an airport - SD doesn't have a top notch system like the BART, which has frequent service that all seem to use. I've been to CLE many times where the subway system more on par with SD serves the airport directly - most trains are empty with many riding being airport employees.

There is a CONRAC planned on the north side with a dedicated roadway for buses (mentioned in above posts). This could connect to the trolley station at Washington Street.

As for Terminal 1, United will move to join the CO gates with the Terminal 2 Green build. This will leave open gates at Terminal 1. One satellite could be demolished and rebuilt, then the second demolished/rebuilt after the first was complete. They could expand to the east to where the cargo facility is now located. I see little value in placing gates east of the current Commuter terminal due to the narrow spacing between Harbor Dr and the runway. This would also create taxiing nightmares from my perspective. Instead, there should be a staging area for departures so that east and north departures can be sequenced.

I know Terminal 1 is a mess, but mostly due to insufficient space for security and lack of sterile connections between satellites. I see the cheapest way to improve this would be to build a second floor over the current security checkpoint. Then move the concessions to the second floor and connect the second floor to both satellites. This would allow sterile connections between satellites, but could be expanded to be sterile to Terminal 2. Of course, SAN hasn't been known to do things on the cheap - anyone remember the defective imported Italian tiles in the Terminal 2E expansion?


User currently offlinechrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 2104 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1876 times:

Quoting hhslax2 (Reply 20):
It would be nice if the rental car buses were consolidated. No need for each of the companies at the rental car facility or along Pacific Highway to have their own buses going out with 1 or 2 people.

I don't like this push to move to gigantic CONRAC facilities. If they're anything like Seattle, Vegas, ABQ, BWI (the worst), they're located in the most inconvenient, awful locations imaginable. I think the BWI one is located in West Virginia somewhere. The busses are always jammed full of people and it's just a miserable experience. A "dedicated" road would be a step in the right direction, though.

This is the first I've heard of it. Any word on when they'll break ground?

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 23):
I know Terminal 1 is a mess, but mostly due to insufficient space for security and lack of sterile connections between satellites.

Who cares about moving between T1 terminals? With the exception of the WN overflow area, there's no need. That terminal is a mess because the TSA can't/won't staff it properly and there's a lack of anything upstairs. Putting the food on a second level doesn't actually fix anything because the space is so small to begin with.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1778 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1736 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I just toured MCAS Miramar last week and the facility is impressive. Yes there is tons of room to the east to act as a buffer (~20k acres). They have two runways at 12,000 ft and ~8,500 ft and tons of space for terminals as well as hangers. Given civilian aircraft technology, the surrounding community would be subjected to far less noise than currently with FA-18s, Ospreys, Super Sea Stallions and C-130s along with other aircraft. It would be an ideal solution for the San Diego community.

It will never happen.

The force re-alignment for the U.S. military has made Miramar the main airbase on the West Coast for the Marine Corps. Its proximity to the U.S. fleet is key for their join operations. There really isn't another base on the West Coast which would adequately serve the Marine Corps; there are other bases around but they are hundreds of miles away from the fleet and many of the aircraft based at Miramar deploy on naval vessels out of San Diego and train on them all the time along with training ops at Camp Pendleton.

The offshore airport is too expensive and too many environmental objections will crop up. Brown Field was shot down years ago. A joint operation based at the old El Toro air station in Orange County never got out of the "what if" stage. There is not another area in San Diego suitable/available for an airport.

This means that SAN will stay where it is for the foreseeable future. New aircraft such as the 787 can help make intercontinental travel a reality but it has to be the right operational fit since most of these a/c will take some weight penalties given the runway and climb out restrictions.

There won't be a tunnel under the runway; water table and incredible cost issues will scuttle that. At some point, T1 will need to be rebuilt in stages to accomodate more passengers and security. Building up is one solution along with doing the satellites one at a time. The commuter terminal area could also be changed with construction to accommodate proper jet ways and space for passengers. That could add perhaps four gates if needed though it might not be cost effective.

SAN will top out given the existing space and cargo handling needs at around 60 gates max. Airlines will have to deal with the crowding issues and eventually, this airport will have slot restrictions.

[Edited 2013-02-21 10:46:19]

User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5412 posts, RR: 12
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1718 times:

Quoting 777ord (Reply 14):
UA will move ALL operations (including a NEW UA club) to T-2, opening up most of T-1 to DL and allow for WN to have overflow.

Not DL but probably AS and perhaps another carrier or 2. (BTW, UA should be moving in a month or 2!) Nobody has announced yet how the 5 ex-UA gates will be re-assigned but AS is certainly a front-runner for at least some of them! (And hopefully they will also remake the ex UA RCC into a nice new AS Board Room!)
Quoting psa1011 (Reply 15):
Interesting, is DL building a Sky Club in T1?

No. In fact I believe they have just remodeled their club in T2W, which is near UA's new RCC there.
Quoting usctrojan18 (Reply 19):
will SAN need more international gates? Because it only has 2 and they aren't really big enough for 2 wide-bodies. I mean the 777 takes up most of the space, and this doesn't even include the Volaris and Canada flights that operate out of 20 and 21. Would SAN add more international gates if the go remodel T1?

SAN actually has 3 intl gates that are connected to the FIS facilities -- 20, 21 and 22. We should be able to handle 2 w/b intl arrivals simultaneously now. Plus, mobile lounge capability is being added as part of the remodel now going on in T2E (specifically at gate 24.) So soon there will be "overflow" a/c parking available in case 3 or more intercontinental flights on large a/c should happen to arrive at the same time!
Quoting hhslax2 (Reply 20):
It would be nice if the rental car buses were consolidated.

As mentioned in reply 18, I believe that is the plan.
Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 23):
As for Terminal 1, United will move to join the CO gates with the Terminal 2 Green build. This will leave open gates at Terminal 1. One satellite could be demolished and rebuilt, then the second demolished/rebuilt after the first was complete.

This was my thought starting a couple of years ago and it made a lot of sense (to me anyway.) Unfortunately, since SAN has been involved in the $1B expansion of T2W (The Green Build), T1 work has been pushed back but is now being addressed.

I would suspect when they DO start the re-build of T1, that's what they will do: move the T1W tenants into T2, tear down T1W, rebuild, then move WN in there and rebuild T1E. (Or something like that.)
Quoting chrisair (Reply 24):
I don't like this push to move to gigantic CONRAC facilities. If they're anything like Seattle, Vegas, ABQ, BWI (the worst), they're located in the most inconvenient, awful locations imaginable. I think the BWI one is located in West Virginia somewhere. The buses are always jammed full of people and it's just a miserable experience. A "dedicated" road would be a step in the right direction, though.

I agree but the plans look much better here and I think it will work very well, while relieving a LOT of traffic congestion out front of SAN's terminals. The planning and design folks here looked carefully at many other CONRACs around the country when figuring out what to do here and I think it will pay off nicely.

bb


User currently offline737tanker From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 262 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 1640 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 25):
The force re-alignment for the U.S. military has made Miramar the main airbase on the West Coast for the Marine Corps. Its proximity to the U.S. fleet is key for their join operations. There really isn't another base on the West Coast which would adequately serve the Marine Corps;


Ideally they should have moved the Marines to the closed George AFB. Basicaaly it is 1/2 between Camp Pendleton and 29 Palms and is closer to the ocean than NAS LeMoore, which is the West Coast base for the Navy's F-18s.
If they opened up Miramar to commercial operations I think even SWA would move there. It is toobad the the city didn't take the Navy up on their offer in 1954 and buy it for $1.


User currently offlineDesertAir From Mexico, joined Jan 2006, 1461 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1556 times:

I favor better service from the trolley/American Plaza/to the Airport. I fly monthly, usually leaving SAN on Saturdays and the connecting bus service is twice an hour. This is insufficient. During the week it run 4x an hour. I am interested in the conversations about trolley extension to the Airport. I almost exclusively use WN and jump for joy when my gates are 1 or 2. The upstairs gate area is always crowded with poor food selection. I observe that new eating options are in the works. I find it interesting that in Terminal 2 the entrance ways and baggage claim have excess space while the gate areas seem to be lacking. I am happy to see SAN picking up more international service with JAL and Volaris.

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...
The Future Of AZ? posted Thu Feb 7 2013 15:01:50 by miaintl
Future Of IAH Part 3 posted Fri Jan 18 2013 14:32:22 by iowaman
The Future Of Cityjet? posted Thu Jan 17 2013 02:38:05 by seansasLCY
Future Of DL Etops Domestic 763s (76P) posted Mon Jan 14 2013 11:31:17 by 1337Delta764
Future Of Olympic Air? posted Fri Jan 11 2013 16:33:06 by SXDFC
Future Of Singapore Airlines And Its Strategy posted Wed Jan 9 2013 08:22:54 by LAXintl
The Future Of International Non-stops From Rio? posted Mon Jan 7 2013 06:03:34 by VC10er
The Future Of Lufthansa´s A340 Fleet? posted Wed Dec 26 2012 05:23:58 by columba
Future Of IAH #2 posted Sun Dec 23 2012 09:35:40 by iowaman
Future Of AF 747 Pax Operations posted Sat Dec 15 2012 04:53:51 by longhaul67