SonaSounds
Topic Author
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:16 pm

SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 3:41 pm

Interesting article and response from SFO. If SFO goes level 3 within the next 5 years this could very well change the dynamics of the Bay Area airports.

The airport's traffic forecast is expected to reach runway capacity by 2025 or 2026, but record growth recently has outpaced projections.

"Subsequent growth has outpaced this forecast and, should it continue, the airport would reach its runway capacity in the 2023 timeframe," Airport spokesman Doug Yakel said. "Whenever that runway capacity is reached would likely be the time when the Federal Aviation Administration would consider designating SFO as a Level 3 Coordinated [slot-controlled] facility."



https://www.sfgate.com/chris-mcginnis/a ... o-14586357
 
nine4nine
Posts: 480
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 3:42 pm

Typical from here in CA. Look at the highway system. They knew many years in advance that there would be a population boom yet they sat on they’re hands for decades and in many cases have not upgraded the infrastructure accordingly. Look at Interstate 5 leaving downtown LA. 3 lanes between there and Orange County. Those 3 lanes on the major artery of SoCal have been there since the 60’s. Just up until this last year they finally decided hey I think we need to add another lane in each direction in this stretch.

They knew decades ago that SFO needed both terminal and runway enhancements/realignments/upgrades/new construction to handle future populous. A slot controlled WX affected airport like SFO will be a nightmare for both pax and carriers.
717 727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 742 748 752 753 762 763 772 773 DC9 MD80/88/90 DC10 319 320 321 332 333 CS100 CRJ200 Q400 E175 E190 ERJ145 EMB120
 
User avatar
janders
Moderator
Posts: 823
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:27 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 3:43 pm

FAA said the same thing could happen 7-years ago and nothing happened.

FAA Looks To Make SFO Slot Restricted
viewtopic.php?t=527019
"We make war that we may live in peace." -- Aristotle
 
jetero
Posts: 4457
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 3:48 pm

nine4nine wrote:
Typical from here in CA. Look at the highway system. They knew many years in advance that there would be a population boom yet they sat on they’re hands for decades and in many cases have not upgraded the infrastructure accordingly. Look at Interstate 5 leaving downtown LA. 3 lanes between there and Orange County. Those 3 lanes on the major artery of SoCal have been there since the 60’s. Just up until this last year they finally decided hey I think we need to add another lane in each direction in this stretch.


It was a policy decision based upon the multitude of constraints. And, as is always the case with freeways, any expansion would buy you 5-10 years. You can't build your way out of sprawl-driven congestion.

nine4nine wrote:
They knew decades ago that SFO needed both terminal and runway enhancements/realignments/upgrades/new construction to handle future populous. A slot controlled WX affected airport like SFO will be a nightmare for both pax and carriers.


How would it be any more of a "nightmare" if it were slot-controlled?
 
nine4nine
Posts: 480
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 3:51 pm

How would it be any more of a "nightmare" if it were slot-controlled?[/quote]


Have you ever flown from JFK?
717 727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 742 748 752 753 762 763 772 773 DC9 MD80/88/90 DC10 319 320 321 332 333 CS100 CRJ200 Q400 E175 E190 ERJ145 EMB120
 
NZ321
Posts: 1071
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 3:52 pm

This is OAK's chance. Time is now. Twin runways (albeit one for link or short haul). New terminal including one with 8 international gates. LCC terminal plus a full service terminal. Cargo moves west to the swamp (reclaimed land). Bring it on.
Plane mad!
 
Prost
Posts: 2406
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:23 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 3:53 pm

This would cement AS and UA as dominant. When EWR was going to become slot controlled, didn’t the airlines pile a bunch of flights in their so they had extra slots than they needed? Would something like that happen in SFO as well?
 
SonaSounds
Topic Author
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 3:54 pm

janders wrote:
FAA said the same thing could happen 7-years ago and nothing happened.

FAA Looks To Make SFO Slot Restricted
viewtopic.php?t=527019


I believe all filings still go through the FAA as SFO is Level 2 right now. They have been monitoring it ever since. SFO adopted runway technology like CSPR to avoid going to level 3 at the time. SFO was around 41m passengers in 2011 and this year they will be hitting ~60m. The airport has grown nearly 50% since this was last reviewed. Anyone who has flown in or out of SFO has experienced the results of this growth.
 
UALFAson
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 2:41 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 4:00 pm

This is a little misleading thread title. "Set to be" suggests to me that it is imminent, which is why I clicked on it. The truth is that this won't happen for 5 years. Or maybe 8. If it even happens at all. Thanks for the clickbait (eyeroll).
"We hope you've enjoyed flying with us as much as we've enjoyed taking you for a ride."
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 9347
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 4:02 pm

nine4nine wrote:
How would it be any more of a "nightmare" if it were slot-controlled?


Have you ever flown from JFK?

JFK is not a nightmare because of its slots. It was a nightmare before the slots too.
 
mpdpilot
Posts: 783
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 6:44 am

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 4:02 pm

So, I am not very familiar with the Slot Controlled process/effects.

I do know that SFO has always struggled with the weather, but it seems to run ok when the weather isn't bad, isn't that all airports? ORD doesn't run smoothly when there is weather. Would the slot limits be below what they are now? I guess I feel like JFK and LGA (the other two slot controlled airports to my knowledge) run into the same problems with the weather.

Can someone who knows more about this than I, explain how the slots would improve the operation? And if they improve things so much, why are they not more widespread?
One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
 
reality
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:01 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 4:03 pm

jetero wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
Typical from here in CA. Look at the highway system. They knew many years in advance that there would be a population boom yet they sat on they’re hands for decades and in many cases have not upgraded the infrastructure accordingly. Look at Interstate 5 leaving downtown LA. 3 lanes between there and Orange County. Those 3 lanes on the major artery of SoCal have been there since the 60’s. Just up until this last year they finally decided hey I think we need to add another lane in each direction in this stretch.


It was a policy decision based upon the multitude of constraints. And, as is always the case with freeways, any expansion would buy you 5-10 years. You can't build your way out of sprawl-driven congestion.

nine4nine wrote:
They knew decades ago that SFO needed both terminal and runway enhancements/realignments/upgrades/new construction to handle future populous. A slot controlled WX affected airport like SFO will be a nightmare for both pax and carriers.


How would it be any more of a "nightmare" if it were slot-controlled?


Unfortunately adding more lanes and more freeways doesn't work either. Public transit does work--to a point. The truth is that densely populated metro areas will always have traffic and congestion no matter what you do. Unavoidable. Comes with the territory.
 
ucdtim17
Posts: 558
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:38 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 4:07 pm

NZ321 wrote:
This is OAK's chance. Time is now. Twin runways (albeit one for link or short haul). New terminal including one with 8 international gates. LCC terminal plus a full service terminal. Cargo moves west to the swamp (reclaimed land). Bring it on.


OAK will benefit from constraints at SFO but new runways are just as unlikely there as they are at SFO. There's adequate capacity with existing runways anyways. If 12/30 ever reaches capacity, arrivals can use the 28s at North Field. New terminal space will be needed and there is plenty of real estate for that north of T1 (cargo facility & economy parking).
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 23629
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 4:08 pm

Its unfortunate but reality is that SFO for years now has ranked near the bottom of DOT ontime performance tables next to NYC airport.

The difficulty of operating at SFO has already led United to spread out its operating schedule at the airport with departures as early as the 5am hour, and also shift increasing volume of international flying away from the noon peak to late night departures. SFO in 2017 had the carriers highest misconnect rate, which certainly can't be cheap to deal with.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
SonaSounds
Topic Author
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 4:25 pm

mpdpilot wrote:
So, I am not very familiar with the Slot Controlled process/effects.

I do know that SFO has always struggled with the weather, but it seems to run ok when the weather isn't bad, isn't that all airports? ORD doesn't run smoothly when there is weather. Would the slot limits be below what they are now? I guess I feel like JFK and LGA (the other two slot controlled airports to my knowledge) run into the same problems with the weather.

Can someone who knows more about this than I, explain how the slots would improve the operation? And if they improve things so much, why are they not more widespread?


IATA publishes a list of Level 2 and Level 3 airports worldwide. There are hundreds: http://www.iata.org/policy/slots/Docume ... -11.6.xlsx

Level 2 & 3 airports are more uncommon in the USA as smaller European countries tend to have the national carrier hub at just one or two airports for the entire country (i.e. BA LHR/LGW, AF CDG, etc) while in the USA the airlines have hubs at multiple airports and most airports have adequate land to expand. Only JFK is currently Level 3 in the USA, and ORD, EWR, MCO, SFO, SEA, and now LAX are Level 2.

Airlines love Level 3 while airports hate it because Level 3 allows airports to "control" their slots and help them keep out competition.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9252
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 4:32 pm

jetero wrote:
It was a policy decision based upon the multitude of constraints. And, as is always the case with freeways, any expansion would buy you 5-10 years.You can't build your way out of sprawl-driven congestion.


You can absolutely build your way out. Every other system of production in society is able to keep up with population and economic growth because we keep building. Name the goods and services that suffer chronic shortage at known times every single day other than transportation.

The problem - as you said - is that we've entrusted transportation to government, which unlike the private sector, is not rewarded for long-term vision.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
blockski
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 4:36 pm

SonaSounds wrote:
mpdpilot wrote:
So, I am not very familiar with the Slot Controlled process/effects.

I do know that SFO has always struggled with the weather, but it seems to run ok when the weather isn't bad, isn't that all airports? ORD doesn't run smoothly when there is weather. Would the slot limits be below what they are now? I guess I feel like JFK and LGA (the other two slot controlled airports to my knowledge) run into the same problems with the weather.

Can someone who knows more about this than I, explain how the slots would improve the operation? And if they improve things so much, why are they not more widespread?


IATA publishes a list of Level 2 and Level 3 airports worldwide. There are hundreds: http://www.iata.org/policy/slots/Docume ... -11.6.xlsx

Level 2 & 3 airports are more uncommon in the USA as smaller European countries tend to have the national carrier hub at just one or two airports for the entire country (i.e. BA LHR/LGW, AF CDG, etc) while in the USA the airlines have hubs at multiple airports and most airports have adequate land to expand. Only JFK is currently Level 3 in the USA, and ORD, EWR, MCO, SFO, SEA, and now LAX are Level 2.

Airlines love Level 3 while airports hate it because Level 3 allows airports to "control" their slots and help them keep out competition.


It's worth noting that DCA and LGA are the equivalent to Level 3, but since they are both primarily domestic and their slot regime is managed by the FAA directly, they don't participate in IATA's WSG process.
 
SonaSounds
Topic Author
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 5:05 pm

ucdtim17 wrote:
NZ321 wrote:
This is OAK's chance. Time is now. Twin runways (albeit one for link or short haul). New terminal including one with 8 international gates. LCC terminal plus a full service terminal. Cargo moves west to the swamp (reclaimed land). Bring it on.


OAK will benefit from constraints at SFO but new runways are just as unlikely there as they are at SFO. There's adequate capacity with existing runways anyways. If 12/30 ever reaches capacity, arrivals can use the 28s at North Field. New terminal space will be needed and there is plenty of real estate for that north of T1 (cargo facility & economy parking).


OAK could probably grow to ~35m to ~40m just on those 2 runways alone (facilities aside). They have much more room to expand than both SFO or SJC.
 
wowlookplanes
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 11:59 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 5:48 pm

Indeed, if only there were alternate airports nearby, or an alternate technology (HSR) to alleviate some of the pressure.....
 
leader1
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 4:44 am

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 5:53 pm

mpdpilot wrote:
So, I am not very familiar with the Slot Controlled process/effects.

I do know that SFO has always struggled with the weather, but it seems to run ok when the weather isn't bad, isn't that all airports? ORD doesn't run smoothly when there is weather. Would the slot limits be below what they are now? I guess I feel like JFK and LGA (the other two slot controlled airports to my knowledge) run into the same problems with the weather.

Can someone who knows more about this than I, explain how the slots would improve the operation? And if they improve things so much, why are they not more widespread?


Slots, if set below an airport's maximum capacity, would limit the number of flights going to and from the airport, improving the operational flow. The FAA states that SFO's maximum operating capacity in good weather is between 100-110 movements an hour if using the most favorable runway configuration (28s for landings and the 1s for most departures, occasionally using the 28s). SFO doesn't really have a problem with departures; it's the arrivals that are problematic. In good weather, SFO can handle between 54-60 arrivals an hour, depending on the aircraft mix. When the weather gets bad and visibility is reduced, which happens almost every day, the arrival rate is more or less halved since you can't run simultaneous arrivals on parallels which are that close together. That's why GDPs (Ground Delay Programs) are a daily occurrence at SFO.

The airport should have been slot controlled long ago. SFO, along with EWR, goes through a GDP each and every day.
Leader-1
 
ucdtim17
Posts: 558
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:38 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 6:12 pm

AirFiero wrote:
ucdtim17 wrote:
AirFiero wrote:

This is the typical flawed thinking by certain types here in California. “Oh, we shouldn’t do ANYTHING because the freeway will be full in a few years anyway “. Rubbish.


Or we should maybe consider not building 50 lane freeways for lots of reasons beyond induced demand. Like not wanting to destroy our cities even more than they already have been by freeways and not wanting to destroy more open space either. Or the absurd cost of freeway construction when we have lots of other better uses for that money. Or the thousands of lives that would be saved every year by moving people from freeways to public transit. Or global warming.


Or everything you just said proves my point about the flawed thinking in this state.


Maybe California isn't for you https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/katy ... 261429.php
 
FlyHappy
Posts: 1036
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 1:06 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 6:32 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
The problem - as you said - is that we've entrusted transportation to government, which unlike the private sector, is not rewarded for long-term vision.


I just blew coffee out my nose.
The private sector is rewarded for long term vision, eh?
Funny, stock holders and particularly BoD seem to value short term profits.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 5399
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 7:41 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
jetero wrote:
It was a policy decision based upon the multitude of constraints. And, as is always the case with freeways, any expansion would buy you 5-10 years.You can't build your way out of sprawl-driven congestion.


You can absolutely build your way out. Every other system of production in society is able to keep up with population and economic growth because we keep building. Name the goods and services that suffer chronic shortage at known times every single day other than transportation.


Let me point out that road transportation takes land. Not land in empty Southern industrial parks, nor Mexico, nor China, but ribbons of land near (or on top of!) where people have already built.

Go take an urban development class - please.
 
77H
Posts: 1441
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 8:01 pm

reality wrote:
jetero wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
Typical from here in CA. Look at the highway system. They knew many years in advance that there would be a population boom yet they sat on they’re hands for decades and in many cases have not upgraded the infrastructure accordingly. Look at Interstate 5 leaving downtown LA. 3 lanes between there and Orange County. Those 3 lanes on the major artery of SoCal have been there since the 60’s. Just up until this last year they finally decided hey I think we need to add another lane in each direction in this stretch.


It was a policy decision based upon the multitude of constraints. And, as is always the case with freeways, any expansion would buy you 5-10 years. You can't build your way out of sprawl-driven congestion.

nine4nine wrote:
They knew decades ago that SFO needed both terminal and runway enhancements/realignments/upgrades/new construction to handle future populous. A slot controlled WX affected airport like SFO will be a nightmare for both pax and carriers.


How would it be any more of a "nightmare" if it were slot-controlled?


Unfortunately adding more lanes and more freeways doesn't work either. Public transit does work--to a point. The truth is that densely populated metro areas will always have traffic and congestion no matter what you do. Unavoidable. Comes with the territory.


Not to get too far off topic... I agree that adding more lanes doesn't solve the problem. The core of the problem is the driver education system in the US and law enforcement tactics related to driving. Drivers education in the US is laughable. I am still young enough to remember my driving exam. I probably drove all of 2 miles on residential and one arterial street before returning to the DMV. Traffic Law Enforcement is also to blame. There is far to much weigh put on speeding when numerous studies have shown that speeding is far from the leading cause of traffic accidents. Distracted driving should be met with the same punishments as drunk driving and should be far more heavily enforced than it is today.

77H
 
SonaSounds
Topic Author
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 9:28 pm

To get back on topic, if SFO's growth becomes severely hampered I am not so sure how well SJC and OAK could keep up. The Bay Area Airport's have been growing around ~5m annually combined the last few years with ~3m to SFO a ~1m to SJC and OAK each. Let's say because of Level 3 SFO flipped to only ~1m a year and the demand stayed the same, how long could SJC and OAK handle 2m a year each of annual growth? While OAK has a ton of room to build SJC seems pretty hard pressed to ever grow past 22m given its curfew and land constraints. While that is nearly double SJC's current numbers, in 5 years from now it could be much closer to that. OAK on the other hand seems to be the best option for long term relief for the Bay Area theoretically being able to handle ~35m to ~40m annual passengers with terminal expansion and its two current runways. The Bay Area does about ~80m annual passengers and by 2030 air travel will surpass what all 3 Bay Area airports can handle (granted the USA stays on the same growth pattern it has had for the last 10 years).
 
jetero
Posts: 4457
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 10:10 pm

SonaSounds wrote:
To get back on topic, if SFO's growth becomes severely hampered I am not so sure how well SJC and OAK could keep up. The Bay Area Airport's have been growing around ~5m annually combined the last few years with ~3m to SFO a ~1m to SJC and OAK each. Let's say because of Level 3 SFO flipped to only ~1m a year and the demand stayed the same, how long could SJC and OAK handle 2m a year each of annual growth? While OAK has a ton of room to build SJC seems pretty hard pressed to ever grow past 22m given its curfew and land constraints. While that is nearly double SJC's current numbers, in 5 years from now it could be much closer to that. OAK on the other hand seems to be the best option for long term relief for the Bay Area theoretically being able to handle ~35m to ~40m annual passengers with terminal expansion and its two current runways. The Bay Area does about ~80m annual passengers and by 2030 air travel will surpass what all 3 Bay Area airports can handle (granted the USA stays on the same growth pattern it has had for the last 10 years).


Tell me why you would assume that the growth rates would continue?

SFO has grown so much because of UA's competitive response to VX since the merger. It's probably borderline profitable. Long-term growth at these artificial rates is unsustainable.

I'm sure UA would be pleased with Level 3 slot controls as it would be grandfathered in at high activity levels and put a kibosh on substantial future competition.
 
User avatar
gregorous
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:51 am

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 10:26 pm

I think growth in the Bay Area is going to continue, although I think the next big recession/depression will push the next big spurt of growth out another decade.

Eventually another airport will have to get built, but that's another discussion.
 
jetero
Posts: 4457
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 10:28 pm

SonaSounds wrote:
jetero wrote:
SonaSounds wrote:
To get back on topic, if SFO's growth becomes severely hampered I am not so sure how well SJC and OAK could keep up. The Bay Area Airport's have been growing around ~5m annually combined the last few years with ~3m to SFO a ~1m to SJC and OAK each. Let's say because of Level 3 SFO flipped to only ~1m a year and the demand stayed the same, how long could SJC and OAK handle 2m a year each of annual growth? While OAK has a ton of room to build SJC seems pretty hard pressed to ever grow past 22m given its curfew and land constraints. While that is nearly double SJC's current numbers, in 5 years from now it could be much closer to that. OAK on the other hand seems to be the best option for long term relief for the Bay Area theoretically being able to handle ~35m to ~40m annual passengers with terminal expansion and its two current runways. The Bay Area does about ~80m annual passengers and by 2030 air travel will surpass what all 3 Bay Area airports can handle (granted the USA stays on the same growth pattern it has had for the last 10 years).


Tell me why you would assume that the growth rates would continue?

SFO has grown so much because of UA's competitive response to VX since the merger. It's probably borderline profitable. Long-term growth at these artificial rates is unsustainable.

I'm sure UA would be pleased with Level 3 slot controls as it would be grandfathered in at high activity levels and put a kibosh on substantial future competition.


I assumed the base amount for the last 10 years. There are obvious factors at each airport that contributed to their respective growth, but for simplicity, I assumed Bay Area growth continued on the same trajectory as their post 2008 numbers have shown. The Bay Area is the 3rd largest O&D market in the country so demand will always be here. Growth may slip a little, but without running or viewing a full forecast, I used the last 10 years growth pattern as a baseline. There could be a significant economic downturn again or another 9/11 but those are difficult to predict when and how much impact they would have. If you have a better model or idea of how to estimate the growth rate of the Bay Area for the next 15 years I would love to see it!


Well the FAA provides forecasts, for one, but I think the mental exercise you're trying to go through is flawed, at least for a constrained environment. If slot controls are enacted at SFO, net growth for the region over the long term will slow down, period. Fares will go up and demand will not increase at as fast of rates. There will continue to be some aircraft upgauging. Some connecting traffic will be replaced by O&D traffic.
 
SonaSounds
Topic Author
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 10:29 pm

jetero wrote:
SonaSounds wrote:
To get back on topic, if SFO's growth becomes severely hampered I am not so sure how well SJC and OAK could keep up. The Bay Area Airport's have been growing around ~5m annually combined the last few years with ~3m to SFO a ~1m to SJC and OAK each. Let's say because of Level 3 SFO flipped to only ~1m a year and the demand stayed the same, how long could SJC and OAK handle 2m a year each of annual growth? While OAK has a ton of room to build SJC seems pretty hard pressed to ever grow past 22m given its curfew and land constraints. While that is nearly double SJC's current numbers, in 5 years from now it could be much closer to that. OAK on the other hand seems to be the best option for long term relief for the Bay Area theoretically being able to handle ~35m to ~40m annual passengers with terminal expansion and its two current runways. The Bay Area does about ~80m annual passengers and by 2030 air travel will surpass what all 3 Bay Area airports can handle (granted the USA stays on the same growth pattern it has had for the last 10 years).


Tell me why you would assume that the growth rates would continue?

SFO has grown so much because of UA's competitive response to VX since the merger. It's probably borderline profitable. Long-term growth at these artificial rates is unsustainable.

I'm sure UA would be pleased with Level 3 slot controls as it would be grandfathered in at high activity levels and put a kibosh on substantial future competition.


I assumed the base amount for the last 10 years. There are obvious factors at each airport that contributed to their respective growth, but for simplicity, I assumed Bay Area growth continued on the same trajectory as their post 2008 numbers have shown. The Bay Area is the 3rd largest O&D market in the country so demand will always be here. Growth may slip a little, but without running or viewing a full forecast, I used the last 10 years growth pattern as a baseline. There could be a significant economic downturn again or another 9/11 but those are difficult to predict when and how much impact they would have. If you have a better model or idea of how to estimate the growth rate of the Bay Area for the next 15 years I would love to see it!
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15368
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 10:39 pm

Since the near-daily GDPs at SFO essentially halve the runway usage, why not just shut down two runways temporarily while reconstructing them far enough apart to allow simultaneous operations full-time?

Short term pain, long term gain...
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
airzona11
Posts: 1495
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 11:05 pm

jetero wrote:
SonaSounds wrote:
To get back on topic, if SFO's growth becomes severely hampered I am not so sure how well SJC and OAK could keep up. The Bay Area Airport's have been growing around ~5m annually combined the last few years with ~3m to SFO a ~1m to SJC and OAK each. Let's say because of Level 3 SFO flipped to only ~1m a year and the demand stayed the same, how long could SJC and OAK handle 2m a year each of annual growth? While OAK has a ton of room to build SJC seems pretty hard pressed to ever grow past 22m given its curfew and land constraints. While that is nearly double SJC's current numbers, in 5 years from now it could be much closer to that. OAK on the other hand seems to be the best option for long term relief for the Bay Area theoretically being able to handle ~35m to ~40m annual passengers with terminal expansion and its two current runways. The Bay Area does about ~80m annual passengers and by 2030 air travel will surpass what all 3 Bay Area airports can handle (granted the USA stays on the same growth pattern it has had for the last 10 years).


Tell me why you would assume that the growth rates would continue?

SFO has grown so much because of UA's competitive response to VX since the merger. It's probably borderline profitable. Long-term growth at these artificial rates is unsustainable.

I'm sure UA would be pleased with Level 3 slot controls as it would be grandfathered in at high activity levels and put a kibosh on substantial future competition.


SFO is very valuable and profitable for United.
 
jetero
Posts: 4457
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 11:09 pm

airzona11 wrote:
jetero wrote:
SonaSounds wrote:
To get back on topic, if SFO's growth becomes severely hampered I am not so sure how well SJC and OAK could keep up. The Bay Area Airport's have been growing around ~5m annually combined the last few years with ~3m to SFO a ~1m to SJC and OAK each. Let's say because of Level 3 SFO flipped to only ~1m a year and the demand stayed the same, how long could SJC and OAK handle 2m a year each of annual growth? While OAK has a ton of room to build SJC seems pretty hard pressed to ever grow past 22m given its curfew and land constraints. While that is nearly double SJC's current numbers, in 5 years from now it could be much closer to that. OAK on the other hand seems to be the best option for long term relief for the Bay Area theoretically being able to handle ~35m to ~40m annual passengers with terminal expansion and its two current runways. The Bay Area does about ~80m annual passengers and by 2030 air travel will surpass what all 3 Bay Area airports can handle (granted the USA stays on the same growth pattern it has had for the last 10 years).


Tell me why you would assume that the growth rates would continue?

SFO has grown so much because of UA's competitive response to VX since the merger. It's probably borderline profitable. Long-term growth at these artificial rates is unsustainable.

I'm sure UA would be pleased with Level 3 slot controls as it would be grandfathered in at high activity levels and put a kibosh on substantial future competition.


SFO is very valuable and profitable for United.


No one said it wasn't valuable. I find it difficult to believe that it ranks as one of the most profitable hubs by margin for UA now. But wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.
 
WkndWanderer
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:36 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 11:17 pm

EA CO AS wrote:
Since the near-daily GDPs at SFO essentially halve the runway usage, why not just shut down two runways temporarily while reconstructing them far enough apart to allow simultaneous operations full-time?

Short term pain, long term gain...


I think that has been proposed before, but has run into various NIMBY and environmental opposition since I think all of the credible options to add separation to the runways involved having to build out new reclaimed land on fill or building a floating bridge style runway in the bay.
 
jetero
Posts: 4457
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 11:26 pm

SonaSounds wrote:
jetero wrote:
SonaSounds wrote:

I assumed the base amount for the last 10 years. There are obvious factors at each airport that contributed to their respective growth, but for simplicity, I assumed Bay Area growth continued on the same trajectory as their post 2008 numbers have shown. The Bay Area is the 3rd largest O&D market in the country so demand will always be here. Growth may slip a little, but without running or viewing a full forecast, I used the last 10 years growth pattern as a baseline. There could be a significant economic downturn again or another 9/11 but those are difficult to predict when and how much impact they would have. If you have a better model or idea of how to estimate the growth rate of the Bay Area for the next 15 years I would love to see it!


Well the FAA provides forecasts, for one, but I think the mental exercise you're trying to go through is flawed, at least for a constrained environment. If slot controls are enacted at SFO, net growth for the region over the long term will slow down, period. Fares will go up and demand will not increase at as fast of rates. There will continue to be some aircraft upgauging. Some connecting traffic will be replaced by O&D traffic.


Again, if you have a better growth rate to go off of, by all means present it as I would love to see it. But if you want to poke holes without contributing any ideas how to improve this forecast model then that's not really helpful now is it? Forecasting is an art not a science. I am factoring a conversation growth rate. SFO is going from 50m to 60m in 3 years. SFO has stated with their runway configuration their max capacity is 82 million. Growing an average of 2m a year of the next 12 years until the 2030 is definitely less than what SFO has been doing. If OAK and SJC even just keep posting 1m annual growth rates each over the next 12 years (at the same pace they have been growing recently) and SFO slows growth by 40% these airport limits by 2030 will still be reached. This is an even slower prediction than the Bay Area Economic Council's 2016 forecast for Bay Area growth specifically the air service growth. We can see next year when they release the 2019 edition if anything changes but I would doubt it will be slower. I was at a conference in March where the CFO of SFO spoke and said SFO will reach maximum terminal build out around 2026-2030 if the rest of there long term construction funding is approved. All this lines up with my assumed conservative growth rates.


Sona forecasts are about assumptions.

If you assume unconstrained facilities, no increase in input costs, no real increase in fares, continued Bay Area outperformance economically, well that long-term rate is probably 3%.

If you assume constrained facilities, increases in input costs, increases in fares (themselves dependent upon constrained facilities), and a potential tech slowdown, well the long-term rate might be 1%.

You assume whatever it is you want to assume. But your methodology is flawed because you are not factoring in potential facility constraints, i.e., you say because the Bay Area airports have grown collectively by 5m p.a. for a recent period, they have to grow at similar rates in the future, even if SFO goes under slot control. That logic is very transparently flawed.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 17684
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 11:26 pm

nine4nine wrote:
Typical from here in CA. Look at the highway system. They knew many years in advance that there would be a population boom yet they sat on they’re hands for decades and in many cases have not upgraded the infrastructure accordingly. Look at Interstate 5 leaving downtown LA. 3 lanes between there and Orange County. Those 3 lanes on the major artery of SoCal have been there since the 60’s. Just up until this last year they finally decided hey I think we need to add another lane in each direction in this stretch.

They knew decades ago that SFO needed both terminal and runway enhancements/realignments/upgrades/new construction to handle future populous. A slot controlled WX affected airport like SFO will be a nightmare for both pax and carriers.

I remember once when California built infrastructure instead of populist vote buying. Yeah. Jobs to buy votes. I'm ok with that!

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
SonaSounds
Topic Author
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 11:30 pm

jetero wrote:
SonaSounds wrote:
jetero wrote:

Tell me why you would assume that the growth rates would continue?

SFO has grown so much because of UA's competitive response to VX since the merger. It's probably borderline profitable. Long-term growth at these artificial rates is unsustainable.

I'm sure UA would be pleased with Level 3 slot controls as it would be grandfathered in at high activity levels and put a kibosh on substantial future competition.


I assumed the base amount for the last 10 years. There are obvious factors at each airport that contributed to their respective growth, but for simplicity, I assumed Bay Area growth continued on the same trajectory as their post 2008 numbers have shown. The Bay Area is the 3rd largest O&D market in the country so demand will always be here. Growth may slip a little, but without running or viewing a full forecast, I used the last 10 years growth pattern as a baseline. There could be a significant economic downturn again or another 9/11 but those are difficult to predict when and how much impact they would have. If you have a better model or idea of how to estimate the growth rate of the Bay Area for the next 15 years I would love to see it!


Well the FAA provides forecasts, for one, but I think the mental exercise you're trying to go through is flawed, at least for a constrained environment. If slot controls are enacted at SFO, net growth for the region over the long term will slow down, period. Fares will go up and demand will not increase at as fast of rates. There will continue to be some aircraft upgauging. Some connecting traffic will be replaced by O&D traffic.


Again, if you have a better growth rate to go off of, by all means present it as I would love to see it. But if you want to poke holes without contributing any ideas how to improve this forecast model then that's not really helpful now is it? Forecasting is an art not a science. I am factoring a conversation growth rate. SFO is going from 50m to 60m in 3 years. SFO has stated with their runway configuration their max capacity is 82 million. Growing an average of 2m a year of the next 12 years until the 2030 is definitely less than what SFO has been doing. If OAK and SJC even just keep posting 1m annual growth rates each over the next 12 years (at the same pace they have been growing recently) and SFO slows growth by 40% these airport limits by 2030 will still be reached. This is an even slower prediction than the Bay Area Economic Council's 2016 forecast for Bay Area growth specifically the air service growth. We can see next year when they release the 2019 edition if anything changes but I would doubt it will be slower. I was at a conference in March where the CFO of SFO spoke and said SFO will reach maximum terminal build out around 2026-2030 if the rest of there long term construction funding is approved. All this lines up with my assumed conservative growth rates.
 
WkndWanderer
Posts: 263
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:36 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 11:31 pm

jetero wrote:
airzona11 wrote:
jetero wrote:

Tell me why you would assume that the growth rates would continue?

SFO has grown so much because of UA's competitive response to VX since the merger. It's probably borderline profitable. Long-term growth at these artificial rates is unsustainable.

I'm sure UA would be pleased with Level 3 slot controls as it would be grandfathered in at high activity levels and put a kibosh on substantial future competition.


SFO is very valuable and profitable for United.


No one said it wasn't valuable. I find it difficult to believe that it ranks as one of the most profitable hubs by margin for UA now. But wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.


SFO has also grown because of the decline in importance of NRT, the versatility of the 787, and United's recognition that is currently has the closest thing to an intercontinental fortress hub on the west coast that's possible at the moment. I actually think a competitive response to VX was a much smaller consideration driving growth considering they were mostly just competing for O&D traffic with a more limited schedule on routes United already covered or easily could. Denver and San Francisco have pretty frequently been cited among UA's most profitable hubs, if that's been dinged up at all I would think it would be more related to some of the bolder transpacific flying UA has been willing to attempt from there more than any SFO specific dynamic.
Last edited by WkndWanderer on Thu May 31, 2018 11:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 14868
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 11:37 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
jetero wrote:
It was a policy decision based upon the multitude of constraints. And, as is always the case with freeways, any expansion would buy you 5-10 years.You can't build your way out of sprawl-driven congestion.


You can absolutely build your way out. Every other system of production in society is able to keep up with population and economic growth because we keep building. Name the goods and services that suffer chronic shortage at known times every single day other than transportation.


Let me point out that road transportation takes land. Not land in empty Southern industrial parks, nor Mexico, nor China, but ribbons of land near (or on top of!) where people have already built.

Go take an urban development class - please.

In many cases the state already owns the land but isn’t doing anything anyway. The 210-710/10 connection in Pasadena is an example. Still debating what to do, decades later, despite overcrowded surface streets that must cram onto historic Route 66 every day.

Yet they own the houses (rent them out) they would need to tear down and have forever. And they have been debating on rerouting it for decades. And one novel solution is to do nothing other than TAKE AWAY lanes on surface streets and add more bike lanes and busses (road diet).

In the mean time, thousands of condos and rental units are being built right there which could greatly benefit from the tunnel to the 710/10.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
SonaSounds
Topic Author
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 11:44 pm

jetero wrote:
SonaSounds wrote:
jetero wrote:

Well the FAA provides forecasts, for one, but I think the mental exercise you're trying to go through is flawed, at least for a constrained environment. If slot controls are enacted at SFO, net growth for the region over the long term will slow down, period. Fares will go up and demand will not increase at as fast of rates. There will continue to be some aircraft upgauging. Some connecting traffic will be replaced by O&D traffic.


Again, if you have a better growth rate to go off of, by all means present it as I would love to see it. But if you want to poke holes without contributing any ideas how to improve this forecast model then that's not really helpful now is it? Forecasting is an art not a science. I am factoring a conversation growth rate. SFO is going from 50m to 60m in 3 years. SFO has stated with their runway configuration their max capacity is 82 million. Growing an average of 2m a year of the next 12 years until the 2030 is definitely less than what SFO has been doing. If OAK and SJC even just keep posting 1m annual growth rates each over the next 12 years (at the same pace they have been growing recently) and SFO slows growth by 40% these airport limits by 2030 will still be reached. This is an even slower prediction than the Bay Area Economic Council's 2016 forecast for Bay Area growth specifically the air service growth. We can see next year when they release the 2019 edition if anything changes but I would doubt it will be slower. I was at a conference in March where the CFO of SFO spoke and said SFO will reach maximum terminal build out around 2026-2030 if the rest of there long term construction funding is approved. All this lines up with my assumed conservative growth rates.


Sona forecasts are about assumptions.

If you assume unconstrained facilities, no increase in input costs, no real increase in fares, continued Bay Area outperformance economically, well that long-term rate is probably 3%.

If you assume constrained facilities, increases in input costs, increases in fares (themselves dependent upon constrained facilities), and a potential tech slowdown, well the long-term rate might be 1%.

You assume whatever it is you want to assume. But your methodology is flawed because you are not factoring in potential facility constraints, i.e., you say because the Bay Area airports have grown collectively by 5m p.a. for a recent period, they have to grow at similar rates in the future, even if SFO goes under slot control. That logic is very transparently flawed.


I do aviation forecasting for a living. Not for the Bay Area specifically mind you but I think I might know a little about what I am talking about.

A 3% growth is not even close to what the Bay Area is experiencing and saying things will drop to a 1% growth in inherently flawed. People have been saying that about the Bay Area for the past 10 years and home prices went from 800k to 2.2m and are still climbing. A slow down in inevitable but who knows when that is coming. Again a prefaced all this by stating assuming a consistent conservative growth rate based off of historic growth patterns over the past 10 years finding when the bay area airports would theoretically reach max capacity. There are thousands of real life factors why this would slow down as we approach 100% capacity. My point was unrestricted growth will reach capacity somewhere around 2030 based on conservative current growth trends.

The question I posed is what other options does the Bay Area have to push passed their current limits? Not to argue that that it is flawed because it will slow down as we approach max capacity......
 
jetero
Posts: 4457
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 11:50 pm

SonaSounds wrote:
United has stated a numerous conference I have attended that half of their 1Ks live in the Bay Area.

Highly doubtful but it's surely disproportionately high and no doubt the highest in the system when the average length of haul is probably over 2,000 miles while that at midcontinent hubs is half that. No surprise there . . .

SonaSounds wrote:
AS didn't spend $2.6B on VX for their planes (They practically lease them all) or their brand (they're getting rid of it). They bought them for the access they had in restricted airports like JFK but most importantly the 10 gates VX had at SFO. You don't put out that kind of money if you don't expect to make it all back. SFO is widely considered UA's most profitable hub after Denver and with 21 new international foreign flag carriers starting service to the Bay Area in the past 5 years, you have to assume their is money to be made there.


Most importantly they bought VX to eliminate a competitor. There are plenty in the industry questioning the wisdom of the acquisition now. Let's see what AS looks like at SFO 5 years from now.

Sona, money works 2 ways--volume and fares. It's not difficult to fill planes from SFO, or LAX, or NYC, or other large markets. The volume risk is low. But automatically equating that with top-tier profitability is sometimes a stretch.
 
SonaSounds
Topic Author
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Thu May 31, 2018 11:52 pm

WkndWanderer wrote:
jetero wrote:
airzona11 wrote:

SFO is very valuable and profitable for United.


No one said it wasn't valuable. I find it difficult to believe that it ranks as one of the most profitable hubs by margin for UA now. But wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.


SFO has also grown because of the decline in importance of NRT, the versatility of the 787, and United's recognition that is currently has the closest thing to an intercontinental fortress hub on the west coast that's possible at the moment. I actually think a competitive response to VX was a much smaller consideration driving growth considering they were mostly just competing for O&D traffic with a more limited schedule on routes United already covered or easily could. Denver and San Francisco have pretty frequently been cited among UA's most profitable hubs, if that's been dinged up at all I would think it would be more related to some of the bolder transpacific flying UA has been willing to attempt from there more than any SFO specific dynamic.


United has stated a numerous conference I have attended that half of their 1Ks live in the Bay Area. AS didn't spend $2.6B on VX for their planes (They practically lease them all) or their brand (they're getting rid of it). They bought them for the access they had in restricted airports like JFK but most importantly the 10 gates VX had at SFO. You don't put out that kind of money if you don't expect to make it all back. SFO is widely considered UA's most profitable hub after Denver and with 21 new international foreign flag carriers starting service to the Bay Area in the past 5 years, you have to assume their is money to be made there.
 
jetero
Posts: 4457
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Fri Jun 01, 2018 12:02 am

SonaSounds wrote:
Then we probably have met in person at a conference or you may even have seen me speak.


Oh I have no doubt our paths have crossed.

SonaSounds wrote:
I believe you are entirely missing the scenario. In this case it is assuming when the Bay Area will hit max capacity as being constrained beyond the pace the market wants to continue to grow as posed in my question.


Sona you're being very one-dimensional and the "market" is not--the market "wants to grow" at certain price levels and price levels aren't static in a constrained scenario. The question you pose is therefore not "real" as far as I'm concerned and you might as well just ask, "Will another airport in the Bay Area receive commercial service if SFO, OAK, and SJC are at capacity?"

Look east to the NYC airports or south to the LA airports for how it's played out. There always seems to be more juice to squeeze from the turnip.
 
SonaSounds
Topic Author
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Fri Jun 01, 2018 12:05 am

jetero wrote:
SonaSounds wrote:
jetero wrote:

Sona forecasts are about assumptions.

If you assume unconstrained facilities, no increase in input costs, no real increase in fares, continued Bay Area outperformance economically, well that long-term rate is probably 3%.

If you assume constrained facilities, increases in input costs, increases in fares (themselves dependent upon constrained facilities), and a potential tech slowdown, well the long-term rate might be 1%.

You assume whatever it is you want to assume. But your methodology is flawed because you are not factoring in potential facility constraints, i.e., you say because the Bay Area airports have grown collectively by 5m p.a. for a recent period, they have to grow at similar rates in the future, even if SFO goes under slot control. That logic is very transparently flawed.


I do aviation forecasting for a living. Not for the Bay Area specifically mind you but I think I might know a little about what I am talking about.


As do I. I hope for the sake of my clients I never have to work with you because you don't seem to understand the basic concept of a constrained versus an unconstrained forecast.


Then we probably have met in person at a conference or you may even have seen me speak. I believe you are entirely missing the scenario. In this case it is assuming when the Bay Area will hit max capacity as being constrained beyond the pace the market wants to continue to grow as posed in my question. I didn't care to spin my wheels to calculate every possible scenario nor am I being paid to do this, that is why I stated I was making broad assumptions. I have no interest trying to calculate how growth will be constrained if nothing is done to expand at the current airports. That is a scenario you made up.

Regardless, the Bay Area in year 20XX will eventually want to grow passed what it feasibly can support under the current master plans at the SJC/OAK/SFO. My question posed is what options does the Bay Area have to expand if they want to accommodate this growth and prevent it from going to some other region or industry?
 
PHLCVGAMTK
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:50 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Fri Jun 01, 2018 12:12 am

SonaSounds wrote:
To get back on topic, if SFO's growth becomes severely hampered I am not so sure how well SJC and OAK could keep up. The Bay Area Airport's have been growing around ~5m annually combined the last few years with ~3m to SFO a ~1m to SJC and OAK each. Let's say because of Level 3 SFO flipped to only ~1m a year and the demand stayed the same, how long could SJC and OAK handle 2m a year each of annual growth? While OAK has a ton of room to build SJC seems pretty hard pressed to ever grow past 22m given its curfew and land constraints. While that is nearly double SJC's current numbers, in 5 years from now it could be much closer to that. OAK on the other hand seems to be the best option for long term relief for the Bay Area theoretically being able to handle ~35m to ~40m annual passengers with terminal expansion and its two current runways. The Bay Area does about ~80m annual passengers and by 2030 air travel will surpass what all 3 Bay Area airports can handle (granted the USA stays on the same growth pattern it has had for the last 10 years).


Well, by 2027, you'll have an operating Bay-to-Basin HSR line siphoning off passengers, and when the entire Phase I segment is done between San Francisco and Los Angeles Union Station, say goodbye to 50% or more of the combined air travel market, SFO/OAK/SJC-LAX/BUR, and probably about 30% of ONT. That will provide more than enough in terms of room to grow at the Bay Area airports. Even if you allow 3 years of schedule slippage for engineering goofs, funding crises, and at least one inevitable recession, that's plenty enough time to not be worried about a regionwide airport capacity crunch.

If SFO has Level 3 slot restrictions anytime soon, that's going to provide a big incentive to any airline who thinks they didn't get enough slots to swing their political influence in favor of more HSR construction faster, just to stick it to everyone else who got slots and make sure they don't appreciate in value.
 
jetero
Posts: 4457
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Fri Jun 01, 2018 12:13 am

SonaSounds wrote:
I am no expert on Bay Area airports and I don't believe another airport is going to rise up.


So I should pay no heed to your assessment of the SFO's hub profitability, AS's rationale for purchasing VX, etc., etc.?
 
SonaSounds
Topic Author
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Fri Jun 01, 2018 12:14 am

jetero wrote:
SonaSounds wrote:
United has stated a numerous conference I have attended that half of their 1Ks live in the Bay Area.

Highly doubtful but it's surely disproportionately high and no doubt the highest in the system when the average length of haul is probably over 2,000 miles while that at midcontinent hubs is half that. No surprise there . . .

SonaSounds wrote:
AS didn't spend $2.6B on VX for their planes (They practically lease them all) or their brand (they're getting rid of it). They bought them for the access they had in restricted airports like JFK but most importantly the 10 gates VX had at SFO. You don't put out that kind of money if you don't expect to make it all back. SFO is widely considered UA's most profitable hub after Denver and with 21 new international foreign flag carriers starting service to the Bay Area in the past 5 years, you have to assume their is money to be made there.


Most importantly they bought VX to eliminate a competitor. There are plenty in the industry questioning the wisdom of the acquisition now. Let's see what AS looks like at SFO 5 years from now.

Sona, money works 2 ways--volume and fares. It's not difficult to fill planes from SFO, or LAX, or NYC, or other large markets. The volume risk is low. But automatically equating that with top-tier profitability is sometimes a stretch.


Again I will take United's Pranav Trivedi and Melinda Franklin's word for it the United is one of their most successful hubs. If you bring some facts to the table I would love to hear them and expand my knowledge, but your constant unsubstantiated personal opinion is tiring. It is well known that the yields out of SFO are lucrative and if you did aviation forecasting you would know that.
 
SonaSounds
Topic Author
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Fri Jun 01, 2018 12:19 am

jetero wrote:
SonaSounds wrote:
Then we probably have met in person at a conference or you may even have seen me speak.


Oh I have no doubt our paths have crossed.

SonaSounds wrote:
I believe you are entirely missing the scenario. In this case it is assuming when the Bay Area will hit max capacity as being constrained beyond the pace the market wants to continue to grow as posed in my question.


Sona you're being very one-dimensional and the "market" is not--the market "wants to grow" at certain price levels and price levels aren't static in a constrained scenario. The question you pose is therefore not "real" as far as I'm concerned and you might as well just ask, "Will another airport in the Bay Area receive commercial service if SFO, OAK, and SJC are at capacity?"

Look east to the NYC airports or south to the LA airports for how it's played out. There always seems to be more juice to squeeze from the turnip.


My question poised was one dimensional and that's EXACTLY what I am asking. You want to twist it into something I didn't ask or change a very simple scenario into something much more complex.

I am no expert on Bay Area airports and I don't believe another airport is going to rise up. My thoughts are something will have to be done at OAK/SJC/SFO to help accept this additional capacity just like the New York Area is playing out or how the LA basin is playing out. I am asking besides what I remember seeing in the master plans of those airports, what other creative options are there for the Bay Area to accept additional traffic down the road?
 
SonaSounds
Topic Author
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Fri Jun 01, 2018 12:23 am

PHLCVGAMTK wrote:
SonaSounds wrote:
To get back on topic, if SFO's growth becomes severely hampered I am not so sure how well SJC and OAK could keep up. The Bay Area Airport's have been growing around ~5m annually combined the last few years with ~3m to SFO a ~1m to SJC and OAK each. Let's say because of Level 3 SFO flipped to only ~1m a year and the demand stayed the same, how long could SJC and OAK handle 2m a year each of annual growth? While OAK has a ton of room to build SJC seems pretty hard pressed to ever grow past 22m given its curfew and land constraints. While that is nearly double SJC's current numbers, in 5 years from now it could be much closer to that. OAK on the other hand seems to be the best option for long term relief for the Bay Area theoretically being able to handle ~35m to ~40m annual passengers with terminal expansion and its two current runways. The Bay Area does about ~80m annual passengers and by 2030 air travel will surpass what all 3 Bay Area airports can handle (granted the USA stays on the same growth pattern it has had for the last 10 years).


Well, by 2027, you'll have an operating Bay-to-Basin HSR line siphoning off passengers, and when the entire Phase I segment is done between San Francisco and Los Angeles Union Station, say goodbye to 50% or more of the combined air travel market, SFO/OAK/SJC-LAX/BUR, and probably about 30% of ONT. That will provide more than enough in terms of room to grow at the Bay Area airports. Even if you allow 3 years of schedule slippage for engineering goofs, funding crises, and at least one inevitable recession, that's plenty enough time to not be worried about a regionwide airport capacity crunch.

If SFO has Level 3 slot restrictions anytime soon, that's going to provide a big incentive to any airline who thinks they didn't get enough slots to swing their political influence in favor of more HSR construction faster, just to stick it to everyone else who got slots and make sure they don't appreciate in value.


I remember reading somewhere around 25%-30% of total Bay Area commercial air traffic is to/from SoCal. HSR could definitely put a dent in things. I totally forgot that project was still going on. Will be interesting to see just how much market share they could capture especially if SFO's Level 3 goes into effect.

Thanks
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1275
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:33 am

ucdtim17 wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
ucdtim17 wrote:

Or we should maybe consider not building 50 lane freeways for lots of reasons beyond induced demand. Like not wanting to destroy our cities even more than they already have been by freeways and not wanting to destroy more open space either. Or the absurd cost of freeway construction when we have lots of other better uses for that money. Or the thousands of lives that would be saved every year by moving people from freeways to public transit. Or global warming.


Or everything you just said proves my point about the flawed thinking in this state.


Maybe California isn't for you https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/katy ... 261429.php


Not any longer. I prefer prosperity and non-lunatic government.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1082
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: SFO Set to be Level 3 Slot Controlled

Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:34 am

SonaSounds wrote:
PHLCVGAMTK wrote:
SonaSounds wrote:
To get back on topic, if SFO's growth becomes severely hampered I am not so sure how well SJC and OAK could keep up. The Bay Area Airport's have been growing around ~5m annually combined the last few years with ~3m to SFO a ~1m to SJC and OAK each. Let's say because of Level 3 SFO flipped to only ~1m a year and the demand stayed the same, how long could SJC and OAK handle 2m a year each of annual growth? While OAK has a ton of room to build SJC seems pretty hard pressed to ever grow past 22m given its curfew and land constraints. While that is nearly double SJC's current numbers, in 5 years from now it could be much closer to that. OAK on the other hand seems to be the best option for long term relief for the Bay Area theoretically being able to handle ~35m to ~40m annual passengers with terminal expansion and its two current runways. The Bay Area does about ~80m annual passengers and by 2030 air travel will surpass what all 3 Bay Area airports can handle (granted the USA stays on the same growth pattern it has had for the last 10 years).


Well, by 2027, you'll have an operating Bay-to-Basin HSR line siphoning off passengers, and when the entire Phase I segment is done between San Francisco and Los Angeles Union Station, say goodbye to 50% or more of the combined air travel market, SFO/OAK/SJC-LAX/BUR, and probably about 30% of ONT. That will provide more than enough in terms of room to grow at the Bay Area airports. Even if you allow 3 years of schedule slippage for engineering goofs, funding crises, and at least one inevitable recession, that's plenty enough time to not be worried about a regionwide airport capacity crunch.

If SFO has Level 3 slot restrictions anytime soon, that's going to provide a big incentive to any airline who thinks they didn't get enough slots to swing their political influence in favor of more HSR construction faster, just to stick it to everyone else who got slots and make sure they don't appreciate in value.


I remember reading somewhere around 25%-30% of total Bay Area commercial air traffic is to/from SoCal. HSR could definitely put a dent in things. I totally forgot that project was still going on. Will be interesting to see just how much market share they could capture especially if SFO's Level 3 goes into effect.

Thanks


HSR is probably 30 years away at the earliest and that’s even if it happens. It’s not funded, the tunnels they need to get into the LA basin are going to be tough and there are a ton of Bay Area and LA communities that will be suing over this project.

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