Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
ucdtim17
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:38 pm

Re: Santa Barbara: They built new terminal, but traffic did not come

Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:26 pm

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
Just another example to show a new building does not bring in new service. Airlines really don't care about facilities at spoke locations (unless its so bad it inter-fears with service)

The new terminals usually do the opposite as expenses and costs go way up then you deter airlines. Bakersfield, Santa Barbara, ONT, SWF there have been many cases of the redesigns doing the opposite of what they envisioned.



Also SMF http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article119307238.html
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15104
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Santa Barbara: They built new terminal, but traffic did not come

Tue Mar 28, 2017 9:51 pm

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
Just another example to show a new building does not bring in new service. Airlines really don't care about facilities at spoke locations (unless its so bad it inter-fears with service)

The new terminals usually do the opposite as expenses and costs go way up then you deter airlines. Bakersfield, Santa Barbara, ONT, SWF there have been many cases of the redesigns doing the opposite of what they envisioned.

Kernel of truth there.

These tiny outstations don't need new facilities. Renovations, sure. Maybe a small addition to meet modern space requirements for security and such. But new terminals just make it more expensive to operate into.

I flew out of SBA once not long before this whole new terminal project started. There was nothing wrong with the classic terminal. It worked and was fast.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
FATFlyer
Posts: 5112
Joined: Fri May 18, 2001 4:12 am

Re: Santa Barbara: They built new terminal, but traffic did not come

Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:24 am

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
Just another example to show a new building does not bring in new service. Airlines really don't care about facilities at spoke locations (unless its so bad it inter-fears with service)

The new terminals usually do the opposite as expenses and costs go way up then you deter airlines. Bakersfield, Santa Barbara, ONT, SWF there have been many cases of the redesigns doing the opposite of what they envisioned.

Bakersfield doubled their problem. First they built a new 64,000 domestic terminal in 2006 at a cost of $33.8 million (SBA's new terminal is roughly the same size)

But BFL then spent another $8 million to add a FIS to the old terminal building located 1/2 mile south of the new domestic terminal. That international terminal closed in 2008 when Mexicana pulled service after 1 year.

They ended up with 2 terminal facilities (including 2 parking lots/concession facilities/etc) to maintain separated by quite a distance.

The FIS should have been built adjacent to the new terminal. Even though it ended up not needed, BFL would not have duplicate terminal facilities to maintain now.
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
 
User avatar
WALmsp
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: Santa Barbara: They built new terminal, but traffic did not come

Wed Mar 29, 2017 3:50 am

The primary intent of the new terminal was to to replace the small, antiquated terminal that was used since the 1940s -- no food or services of any type, or more importantly, restrooms beyond security; tiny waiting areas, etc. The airport commission even stated that the possibility of larger aircraft was dependent on supply and demand. Yes, they want more service, but it was not a "build it and they will come" scenario.
In memory of my Dad, Robert "Bob" Fenrich, WAL 1964-1979, MSP ONT LAX
 
User avatar
WALmsp
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: Santa Barbara: They built new terminal, but traffic did not come

Wed Mar 29, 2017 4:00 am

Architecturally very nice, but not functional

In memory of my Dad, Robert "Bob" Fenrich, WAL 1964-1979, MSP ONT LAX
 
ericm2031
Posts: 1445
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:46 am

Re: Santa Barbara: They built new terminal, but traffic did not come

Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:20 am

There have definitely been some WN and DL rumors floating around lately. The airport is projecting an 80k seat increase by UA for the next fiscal year. With the new UA upgauges, frequency has yet to be cut, so they be testing to see what the market can handle or trying to keep away new carriers from coming. AS has already decided not to bring back their 2nd daily SEA flight for the summer do to higher priorities for the QX/OO E175s.

One of the design flaws of the new terminal is there are plenty of ticket counters but only 5 gates. Another one of the goals of the new terminal was to eliminate ground boarding of aircraft. Problem is UA overnights 4 and AA 1 but there are only 3 jetbridges. At the time of the completion of the terminal, there were even more as F9, AE to LAX, and AS also were overnighting planes. There's also no baggage carousel, which will be a mess with mainline amounts of bags to unload.

I do believe expansion was needed, but I'm not sure an entire new building was needed and they didn't optimize the space. 30+ flights a day out of the old terminal definitely wasn't working the best and there was not enough room for modern TSA equipment needs.
 
User avatar
diverdave
Posts: 704
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 1:00 am

Re: Santa Barbara: They built new terminal, but traffic did not come

Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:56 pm

WALmsp wrote:
The primary intent of the new terminal was to to replace the small, antiquated terminal that was used since the 1940s -- no food or services of any type, or more importantly, restrooms beyond security; tiny waiting areas, etc. The airport commission even stated that the possibility of larger aircraft was dependent on supply and demand. Yes, they want more service, but it was not a "build it and they will come" scenario.


You summed it up very well I think. The holding areas had no bathrooms, and did not have enough seating. When multiple flights left at the same time, the terminal was quite crowded.

It was charming I think, but not that functional. And it was in the floodplain, which I think the new terminal has been raised.

I would have to agree that it seems the new space is not being used all that effectively. I don't think it was a case that they built a huge new terminal for traffic that didn't materialize. They built a new terminal which I expect was very expensive given the area, and then were hit with a traffic decline as flights were dropped and customers drove to alternate airports for lower fares.

edit: found in the article that the new terminal was $37 million. That's hardly a staggering amount for an airport terminal, much less in California. Certainly it is a concern that the airport is losing money.

I am wondering if there is space in the new baggage claim for at least one carousel. Maybe that was the plan and money ran short. In any case, a huge improvement over the former luggage claim tent.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 25289
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Santa Barbara: They built new terminal, but traffic did not come

Wed Mar 29, 2017 4:28 pm

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
Just another example to show a new building does not bring in new service. Airlines really don't care about facilities at spoke locations (unless its so bad it inter-fears with service)

The new terminals usually do the opposite as expenses and costs go way up then you deter airlines. Bakersfield, Santa Barbara, ONT, SWF there have been many cases of the redesigns doing the opposite of what they envisioned.

It also demonstrates the time lag between the time when a new building is being considered and the time when the new building is put into service. Planning and budget approvals take years if not decades, and by the time the project gets implemented the business conditions could have changed dramatically. However once the plans and the money is approved the project goes ahead regardless of whether or not the project still makes sense.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
FX1816
Posts: 473
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:02 am

Re: Santa Barbara: They built new terminal, but traffic did not come

Thu Mar 30, 2017 7:09 am

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
Just another example to show a new building does not bring in new service. Airlines really don't care about facilities at spoke locations (unless its so bad it inter-fears with service)

The new terminals usually do the opposite as expenses and costs go way up then you deter airlines. Bakersfield, Santa Barbara, ONT, SWF there have been many cases of the redesigns doing the opposite of what they envisioned.



You may be right about the others but you are completely wrong about ONT. The new terminals opened September of 1998 and the airport had its peak years between 2006-2008. The economy played a big part in the huge drop at ONT. We are on our way back very slowly but it's happening. Getting back to 2006-2008 numbers will be hard but doable. However, for the record I have absolutely no delusions that ONT is going to become some big juggernaut.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos