I can't wait to see the construction of T-1 from the airside. Got two trips this year from SAN (BA and AS) so I can see the progression from both trips.

SANFan wrote:

Hey Spirit, why don't you just pack it up and take your meager assortment of ground-support equipment up north 100 miles and make room for a real airline interested in serving San Diego?

bb

The way the airlines are seemingly avoiding SAN, I welcome anything at this point! Even if it
is NK adding SJC. We don't need to lose any airlines to LAX. LAX is a big airline magnet as
it is.

Hydrahawk wrote:

I can't wait to see the construction of T-1 from the airside.

I haven't been down to SAN in a good while. I'd like to see the construction progress also.
I haven't seen any pictures of the progress yet. I'm just wondering if they have the structures
up yet?

n711hk wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

SANFan wrote:

Oh boy, after their roaring success with 1 (not even always daily) OAK flight, their doubling down on the Bay Area!

So essentially NK will connect SAN with LAS, OAK & now SJC! What a route map from here! Maybe next will be a sub-daily flight to SMF? Forget all that unimportant stuff they used to serve from here such as DFW, IAH, ORD, BWI, DTW, DEN, etc... WE NEED MORE SEATS TO LAS & SJC!

Hey Spirit, why don't you just pack it up and take your meager assortment of ground-support equipment up north 100 miles and make room for a real airline interested in serving San Diego?

bb

LOL! Do I detect some animosity against NK?

Basically anybody other than Alaska. Congrats to Spirit for stepping out of their comfort zone and going ahead WN and AS. While I’m not a fan of NK personally and don’t need to dramatically share that, more competition always a good thing.

This user has a habit of making these types of post, I remember when WN didn’t offer a full Hawaii schedule and the same user mentioned they will remember this when booking their next flight as WN hasn’t kept their word on their Hawaii flights from SAN. It’s extremely hilarious to read their post at times

N1120A wrote:

For those who are interested, we have a rare VFR day on Runway 9 going on.

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

I wouldn't bet the farm on Condor returning - the SAN-Germany market hasn't fully returned from Covid, and even before it was still looking for the right fit. And I think MUC is a better choice, as the A350 fits perfectly at SAN, and anything else would require four engines, which I believe are on the way out, yes? Obviously not an A380, and the 747-8 would have too much first class that SAN doesn't generate. What A340's are going to be around, and for how long?

Why does this concept pervade? BA has had no problem scheduling 77Ws here. Modern twins have no issue with SAN at all, except for MAYBE requiring 27 in low wind conditions. LH sometimes subbed the A330 during the FRA era. The LH 789s could easily come to SAN if they wanted to bring FRA back, or they could look at the 744 if demand was there.

All planes taking off from SAN must be able to do the following: should an engine failure occur AFTER V1 has been reached - meaning the plane is fully committed to taking off and cannot stop in the space remaining - it must be capable of lifting off, clearing the terrain obstacles at the end of the runway (in this case, Point Loma), and circling around to return for a safe landing.

This has never been an issue for any flights departing SAN for North America, as the combination of passenger weight, cargo and luggage weight, and fuel is well within design specifications.

For flights to farther distances, this was, for many years, a problem. For three-engine aircraft, like BCal''s and BA's DC-10's, this was only a 33% loss in power (and the 747, which would only lose 25% of its power), which both aircraft were more than capable of completing. Further, until the early 2000's, a tech-stop at either LAX or PHX for passengers was always made, so the plane departed SAN with very little fuel anyway. It is not how things would ever be done today; however, this was how BA managed this flight.

With the advent of newer aircraft and newer engines, twin-engine jets became more and more powerful. Just before 9/11, BA was confident enough in their 777's to meet this requirement so that they could indeed fly non-stop from San Diego to London. This flight disappeared in 2002, but reappeared later with both 747's and 777's, all of which obviously met this requirement.

One of the reasons Japan Air Lines purchased the 787 was to fly San Diego to Tokyo non-stop, and the 787 was designed with this route in mind. And even when the 787 was withdrawn temporarily over the battery issue, a 777 was used. My guess is that the operating economics of the 787 are preferred by JAL, since that plane returned very quickly once the battery issue was fixed.

Condor's short-lived service with a 767 obviously didn't have any long-term cargo contracts, as three days a week for a limited period of time isn't going to inspire permanent business deals. We knew this wouldn't last long, and it didn't - it was replaced very quickly with regularly-scheduled year-round Lufthansa flights, which would be based partly on the premium demand driven with cargo contracts.

Lufthansa, on the other hand, had neither A350's nor 787's when mainline LH aircraft began regular service to FRA in 2018. Yes, an A330 has the range to fly Germany to San Diego; however, their A330's were right on the edge of their limits if the plane was fully loaded with passengers and cargo. The A340-300's, on the other hand, were perfect for this route at the time.

LH's return to SAN with the A350 to MUC is, in my opinion, the perfect choice. I like MUC as a hub better than FRA, and the A350 has no worries whatsoever about SAN's terrain clearance. And if LH decides to utilize the 787 from whatever hub they choose (is that an FRA plane, a MUC plane, or both?), this will not be a concern either.

Should AF/KL enter the SAN market, their 777's, 787's, and A350's will all be capable of flying here without any problems. In fact, all future international/long-distance flying will be no problem, as all modern twin-jets are easily capable for flying great distances fully-loaded, from either runway 9 or 27. It must be noted, however, that not every twin-jet flying long distances was or is capable of such a feat. But as time progresses, this "restriction" will become irrelevant, as modern planes replace older planes in airlines' fleets.

n711hk wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

SANFan wrote:

Oh boy, after their roaring success with 1 (not even always daily) OAK flight, their doubling down on the Bay Area!

So essentially NK will connect SAN with LAS, OAK & now SJC! What a route map from here! Maybe next will be a sub-daily flight to SMF? Forget all that unimportant stuff they used to serve from here such as DFW, IAH, ORD, BWI, DTW, DEN, etc... WE NEED MORE SEATS TO LAS & SJC!

Hey Spirit, why don't you just pack it up and take your meager assortment of ground-support equipment up north 100 miles and make room for a real airline interested in serving San Diego?

bb

LOL! Do I detect some animosity against NK?

Basically anybody other than Alaska. Congrats to Spirit for stepping out of their comfort zone and going ahead WN and AS. While I’m not a fan of NK personally and don’t need to dramatically share that, more competition always a good thing.

I mostly subscribed to the more competition is alawys good ideology, but only mostly.

One caveat is that predatory competition has the effect of reducing competition in the long term,.another is that ULCC aren't always competing for the same costumers as a network carrier, but the small overlap in their costumer base can make it difficult for network carriers to compete with each other and ULCC to compete with each other.

With regards to the newly announced IAD-SAN 772 flight, I have been trying to figure out which gates are capable of docking a 777, given the 2-inches-short-of-200-feet wingspan, not every gate at Terminal 2 can dock this plane. I'm guessing 48 through 51 are all capable, as would be 22 through 24. Does anyone know for sure?

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

LH's return to SAN with the A350 to MUC is, in my opinion, the perfect choice. I like MUC as a hub better than FRA, and the A350 has no worries whatsoever about SAN's terrain clearance. And if LH decides to utilize the 787 from whatever hub they choose (is that an FRA plane, a MUC plane, or both?), this will not be a concern either.

Should AF/KL enter the SAN market, their 777's, 787's, and A350's will all be capable of flying here without any problems. In fact, all future international/long-distance flying will be no problem, as all modern twin-jets are easily capable for flying great distances fully-loaded, from either runway 9 or 27. It must be noted, however, that not every twin-jet flying long distances was or is capable of such a feat. But as time progresses, this "restriction" will become irrelevant, as modern planes replace older planes in airlines' fleets.

Then why are you contradicting yourself by saying earlier that a 4-engined aircraft is essential for SAN?

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

With regards to the newly announced IAD-SAN 772 flight, I have been trying to figure out which gates are capable of docking a 777, given the 2-inches-short-of-200-feet wingspan, not every gate at Terminal 2 can dock this plane. I'm guessing 48 through 51 are all capable, as would be 22 through 24. Does anyone know for sure?

I'm not having luck finding my files on the gate situation but after looking at some aerial views of T2, and doing my best to recall what I learned a few years ago, it seems to me that there are at least 4 wide-body compatible gates in west T2W, 47, 48, 50 & 51, and possibly also gate 46. (If gate 50 were to house a wide-body, it would also use the footprint of gate 49.) Part of my uncertainty is I'm trying not to confuse wide-bodies with FIS-compatible gates which I'm quite sure are 46-51 - 6 gates could connect with the FIS facilities simultaneously IF at least 2 narrow-bodies are among them. If they were all wide-bodies, then it's either 4 or possibly 5 max.

It seems to me that at least one of DL's usual gates can also support at least a 767/A330. (I'm not sure about a T7 or one of the larger wide-codies.)

The former customs gates, 20-22, in T2E, could handle wide-bodies but of course those are used exclusively by AS. I don't think they would be available on a regular basis for UA or any other cx. (Perhaps an occasional one-off charter if all the T2W gates were already full of wide-bodies...)

I would assume UA's T7 would probably use gate 47 (or perhaps 46?)

bb

Don’t know if it helps, but when I flew a Delta 767-300 ATL-SAN a few years ago, we arrived at gate 51.

And I can also provide first hand experience with gates 20-22. Hawaiian used 22 with the DC-10 when they first started serving SAN and were handled by Northwest; they moved to T2W in the rotunda when they changed their ground handling by Delta (and currently they A330 flight to HNL uses 51). My first time flying BA into SAN, on the 777-300ER into SAN, we used either 20 or 21 (don’t remember which). And way back when the BA flight was a 747 via PHX, they parked out at the end of T2E among American’s flights; I still remember seeing a Chelsea Rose tail sitting there looking gorgeous in the airport lights after sunset when arriving in another flight. But these were a number of years ago and I don’t know if the gates have been reconfigured, especially with the construction and opening of the west side of T2W.

SANFan wrote:

Iggy500 wrote:

SAN-SJC on NK starts 6/7/23.

Oh boy, after their roaring success with 1 (not even always daily) OAK flight, their doubling down on the Bay Area!

So essentially NK will connect SAN with LAS, OAK & now SJC! What a route map from here! Maybe next will be a sub-daily flight to SMF? Forget all that unimportant stuff they used to serve from here such as DFW, IAH, ORD, BWI, DTW, DEN, etc... WE NEED MORE SEATS TO LAS & SJC!

Hey Spirit, why don't you just pack it up and take your meager assortment of ground-support equipment up north 100 miles and make room for a real airline interested in serving San Diego?

bb

It may have slipped under the radar, but Spirit has SAN-ORD nonstops showing bookable on their website starting about May 5th.

Get ready for some chaotic operations and issues with the storm system this week, and that's going for all SoCal airports.

reednavy wrote:

Get ready for some chaotic operations and issues with the storm system this week, and that's going for all SoCal airports.

At least it's not a hurricane/tropical storm this time.

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

N1120A wrote:

For those who are interested, we have a rare VFR day on Runway 9 going on.

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

I wouldn't bet the farm on Condor returning - the SAN-Germany market hasn't fully returned from Covid, and even before it was still looking for the right fit. And I think MUC is a better choice, as the A350 fits perfectly at SAN, and anything else would require four engines, which I believe are on the way out, yes? Obviously not an A380, and the 747-8 would have too much first class that SAN doesn't generate. What A340's are going to be around, and for how long?

Why does this concept pervade? BA has had no problem scheduling 77Ws here. Modern twins have no issue with SAN at all, except for MAYBE requiring 27 in low wind conditions. LH sometimes subbed the A330 during the FRA era. The LH 789s could easily come to SAN if they wanted to bring FRA back, or they could look at the 744 if demand was there.

All planes taking off from SAN must be able to do the following: should an engine failure occur AFTER V1 has been reached - meaning the plane is fully committed to taking off and cannot stop in the space remaining - it must be capable of lifting off, clearing the terrain obstacles at the end of the runway (in this case, Point Loma), and circling around to return for a safe landing.

This has never been an issue for any flights departing SAN for North America, as the combination of passenger weight, cargo and luggage weight, and fuel is well within design specifications.

For flights to farther distances, this was, for many years, a problem. For three-engine aircraft, like BCal''s and BA's DC-10's, this was only a 33% loss in power (and the 747, which would only lose 25% of its power), which both aircraft were more than capable of completing. Further, until the early 2000's, a tech-stop at either LAX or PHX for passengers was always made, so the plane departed SAN with very little fuel anyway. It is not how things would ever be done today; however, this was how BA managed this flight.

With the advent of newer aircraft and newer engines, twin-engine jets became more and more powerful. Just before 9/11, BA was confident enough in their 777's to meet this requirement so that they could indeed fly non-stop from San Diego to London. This flight disappeared in 2002, but reappeared later with both 747's and 777's, all of which obviously met this requirement.

One of the reasons Japan Air Lines purchased the 787 was to fly San Diego to Tokyo non-stop, and the 787 was designed with this route in mind. And even when the 787 was withdrawn temporarily over the battery issue, a 777 was used. My guess is that the operating economics of the 787 are preferred by JAL, since that plane returned very quickly once the battery issue was fixed.

Condor's short-lived service with a 767 obviously didn't have any long-term cargo contracts, as three days a week for a limited period of time isn't going to inspire permanent business deals. We knew this wouldn't last long, and it didn't - it was replaced very quickly with regularly-scheduled year-round Lufthansa flights, which would be based partly on the premium demand driven with cargo contracts.

Lufthansa, on the other hand, had neither A350's nor 787's when mainline LH aircraft began regular service to FRA in 2018. Yes, an A330 has the range to fly Germany to San Diego; however, their A330's were right on the edge of their limits if the plane was fully loaded with passengers and cargo. The A340-300's, on the other hand, were perfect for this route at the time.

LH's return to SAN with the A350 to MUC is, in my opinion, the perfect choice. I like MUC as a hub better than FRA, and the A350 has no worries whatsoever about SAN's terrain clearance. And if LH decides to utilize the 787 from whatever hub they choose (is that an FRA plane, a MUC plane, or both?), this will not be a concern either.

Should AF/KL enter the SAN market, their 777's, 787's, and A350's will all be capable of flying here without any problems. In fact, all future international/long-distance flying will be no problem, as all modern twin-jets are easily capable for flying great distances fully-loaded, from either runway 9 or 27. It must be noted, however, that not every twin-jet flying long distances was or is capable of such a feat. But as time progresses, this "restriction" will become irrelevant, as modern planes replace older planes in airlines' fleets.

Great analysis, but I hardly think that JL bought 787s just with SAN in mind.

Duplicate. Delete please.

757SanCam wrote:

VASA has just put out ATC with UA 2664 yesterday. It's very enlightening of how intense it was with the laptop battery fire once the emergency was declared. Some of this might be a bit hard to hear, the pilots obviously put their oxygen masks on. Approach lets them know about terrain. No time to dump fuel, they needed to get down ASAP. The pilots stopped on runway for the brake's temperature to be checked before taxi to the gate.

All in all, a remarkable job by the UA crew, ATC Approach and tower, SD Fire and airport ops. https://youtu.be/fdE6zb850Aw

Thanks for sharing. Great professionalism by all.

One point. 737s can’t dump fuel. Not a question of time.

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

N1120A wrote:

For those who are interested, we have a rare VFR day on Runway 9 going on.

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

I wouldn't bet the farm on Condor returning - the SAN-Germany market hasn't fully returned from Covid, and even before it was still looking for the right fit. And I think MUC is a better choice, as the A350 fits perfectly at SAN, and anything else would require four engines, which I believe are on the way out, yes? Obviously not an A380, and the 747-8 would have too much first class that SAN doesn't generate. What A340's are going to be around, and for how long?

Why does this concept pervade? BA has had no problem scheduling 77Ws here. Modern twins have no issue with SAN at all, except for MAYBE requiring 27 in low wind conditions. LH sometimes subbed the A330 during the FRA era. The LH 789s could easily come to SAN if they wanted to bring FRA back, or they could look at the 744 if demand was there.

All planes taking off from SAN must be able to do the following: should an engine failure occur AFTER V1 has been reached - meaning the plane is fully committed to taking off and cannot stop in the space remaining - it must be capable of lifting off, clearing the terrain obstacles at the end of the runway (in this case, Point Loma), and circling around to return for a safe landing.

This has never been an issue for any flights departing SAN for North America, as the combination of passenger weight, cargo and luggage weight, and fuel is well within design specifications.

For flights to farther distances, this was, for many years, a problem. For three-engine aircraft, like BCal''s and BA's DC-10's, this was only a 33% loss in power (and the 747, which would only lose 25% of its power), which both aircraft were more than capable of completing. Further, until the early 2000's, a tech-stop at either LAX or PHX for passengers was always made, so the plane departed SAN with very little fuel anyway. It is not how things would ever be done today; however, this was how BA managed this flight.

With the advent of newer aircraft and newer engines, twin-engine jets became more and more powerful. Just before 9/11, BA was confident enough in their 777's to meet this requirement so that they could indeed fly non-stop from San Diego to London. This flight disappeared in 2002, but reappeared later with both 747's and 777's, all of which obviously met this requirement.

One of the reasons Japan Air Lines purchased the 787 was to fly San Diego to Tokyo non-stop, and the 787 was designed with this route in mind. And even when the 787 was withdrawn temporarily over the battery issue, a 777 was used. My guess is that the operating economics of the 787 are preferred by JAL, since that plane returned very quickly once the battery issue was fixed.

Condor's short-lived service with a 767 obviously didn't have any long-term cargo contracts, as three days a week for a limited period of time isn't going to inspire permanent business deals. We knew this wouldn't last long, and it didn't - it was replaced very quickly with regularly-scheduled year-round Lufthansa flights, which would be based partly on the premium demand driven with cargo contracts.

Lufthansa, on the other hand, had neither A350's nor 787's when mainline LH aircraft began regular service to FRA in 2018. Yes, an A330 has the range to fly Germany to San Diego; however, their A330's were right on the edge of their limits if the plane was fully loaded with passengers and cargo. The A340-300's, on the other hand, were perfect for this route at the time.

LH's return to SAN with the A350 to MUC is, in my opinion, the perfect choice. I like MUC as a hub better than FRA, and the A350 has no worries whatsoever about SAN's terrain clearance. And if LH decides to utilize the 787 from whatever hub they choose (is that an FRA plane, a MUC plane, or both?), this will not be a concern either.

Should AF/KL enter the SAN market, their 777's, 787's, and A350's will all be capable of flying here without any problems. In fact, all future international/long-distance flying will be no problem, as all modern twin-jets are easily capable for flying great distances fully-loaded, from either runway 9 or 27. It must be noted, however, that not every twin-jet flying long distances was or is capable of such a feat. But as time progresses, this "restriction" will become irrelevant, as modern planes replace older planes in airlines' fleets.

I thought BA started the nonstop once enough demand for it materialized. The did fly the same aircraft that used to stop in PHX (744).

BoeingGuy wrote:

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

N1120A wrote:

For those who are interested, we have a rare VFR day on Runway 9 going on.



Why does this concept pervade? BA has had no problem scheduling 77Ws here. Modern twins have no issue with SAN at all, except for MAYBE requiring 27 in low wind conditions. LH sometimes subbed the A330 during the FRA era. The LH 789s could easily come to SAN if they wanted to bring FRA back, or they could look at the 744 if demand was there.

All planes taking off from SAN must be able to do the following: should an engine failure occur AFTER V1 has been reached - meaning the plane is fully committed to taking off and cannot stop in the space remaining - it must be capable of lifting off, clearing the terrain obstacles at the end of the runway (in this case, Point Loma), and circling around to return for a safe landing.

This has never been an issue for any flights departing SAN for North America, as the combination of passenger weight, cargo and luggage weight, and fuel is well within design specifications.

For flights to farther distances, this was, for many years, a problem. For three-engine aircraft, like BCal''s and BA's DC-10's, this was only a 33% loss in power (and the 747, which would only lose 25% of its power), which both aircraft were more than capable of completing. Further, until the early 2000's, a tech-stop at either LAX or PHX for passengers was always made, so the plane departed SAN with very little fuel anyway. It is not how things would ever be done today; however, this was how BA managed this flight.

With the advent of newer aircraft and newer engines, twin-engine jets became more and more powerful. Just before 9/11, BA was confident enough in their 777's to meet this requirement so that they could indeed fly non-stop from San Diego to London. This flight disappeared in 2002, but reappeared later with both 747's and 777's, all of which obviously met this requirement.

One of the reasons Japan Air Lines purchased the 787 was to fly San Diego to Tokyo non-stop, and the 787 was designed with this route in mind. And even when the 787 was withdrawn temporarily over the battery issue, a 777 was used. My guess is that the operating economics of the 787 are preferred by JAL, since that plane returned very quickly once the battery issue was fixed.

Condor's short-lived service with a 767 obviously didn't have any long-term cargo contracts, as three days a week for a limited period of time isn't going to inspire permanent business deals. We knew this wouldn't last long, and it didn't - it was replaced very quickly with regularly-scheduled year-round Lufthansa flights, which would be based partly on the premium demand driven with cargo contracts.

Lufthansa, on the other hand, had neither A350's nor 787's when mainline LH aircraft began regular service to FRA in 2018. Yes, an A330 has the range to fly Germany to San Diego; however, their A330's were right on the edge of their limits if the plane was fully loaded with passengers and cargo. The A340-300's, on the other hand, were perfect for this route at the time.

LH's return to SAN with the A350 to MUC is, in my opinion, the perfect choice. I like MUC as a hub better than FRA, and the A350 has no worries whatsoever about SAN's terrain clearance. And if LH decides to utilize the 787 from whatever hub they choose (is that an FRA plane, a MUC plane, or both?), this will not be a concern either.

Should AF/KL enter the SAN market, their 777's, 787's, and A350's will all be capable of flying here without any problems. In fact, all future international/long-distance flying will be no problem, as all modern twin-jets are easily capable for flying great distances fully-loaded, from either runway 9 or 27. It must be noted, however, that not every twin-jet flying long distances was or is capable of such a feat. But as time progresses, this "restriction" will become irrelevant, as modern planes replace older planes in airlines' fleets.

Great analysis, but I hardly think that JL bought 787s just with SAN in mind.

Not to mention just about almost any newer type can make the ascent single engine off of 27. Departures on 9 is/was the problem..

LAOCA wrote:

I thought BA started the nonstop once enough demand for it materialized. The did fly the same aircraft that used to stop in PHX (744).

BA re-tried SAN (for the 3rd time!) on June 1, 2011, with the announcement of service in late 2010, almost simultaneously with the announcement/approval of the JV between BA, AA and IB, something they didn't have for the two prior attempts at SAN-service. The first attempt at the market for BA was way back in 1988/9, the second in March 2001 (the first nonstop service, a T7 to LGW.)

They wanted to serve SAN for decades, and tried, but really, the Joint Venture made the difference and Speedbird has been a regular and happy tenant here (with an occasional small blip or two, such as covid) since.

Note: SAN has seen all the largest of BA's modern fleet except for the A380.

bb

Vicenza wrote:

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

LH's return to SAN with the A350 to MUC is, in my opinion, the perfect choice. I like MUC as a hub better than FRA, and the A350 has no worries whatsoever about SAN's terrain clearance. And if LH decides to utilize the 787 from whatever hub they choose (is that an FRA plane, a MUC plane, or both?), this will not be a concern either.

Should AF/KL enter the SAN market, their 777's, 787's, and A350's will all be capable of flying here without any problems. In fact, all future international/long-distance flying will be no problem, as all modern twin-jets are easily capable for flying great distances fully-loaded, from either runway 9 or 27. It must be noted, however, that not every twin-jet flying long distances was or is capable of such a feat. But as time progresses, this "restriction" will become irrelevant, as modern planes replace older planes in airlines' fleets.

Then why are you contradicting yourself by saying earlier that a 4-engined aircraft is essential for SAN?

I am NOT saying that a 4-engine aircraft is essential TODAY, I am saying that is has been essential in the past. Engine technology has improved (along with aircraft design) to work around the terrain-clearance obstacle at SAN. In 2017, without A350's or 787's, LH found the A340-300 perfect for this roll. They have, however, decided that MUC is a better fit for SAN, and has chosen instead to fly to this hub, utilizing the A350.

SANFan wrote:

I'm not having luck finding my files on the gate situation but after looking at some aerial views of T2, and doing my best to recall what I learned a few years ago, it seems to me that there are at least 4 wide-body compatible gates in west T2W, 47, 48, 50 & 51, and possibly also gate 46. (If gate 50 were to house a wide-body, it would also use the footprint of gate 49.) Part of my uncertainty is I'm trying not to confuse wide-bodies with FIS-compatible gates which I'm quite sure are 46-51 - 6 gates could connect with the FIS facilities simultaneously IF at least 2 narrow-bodies are among them. If they were all wide-bodies, then it's either 4 or possibly 5 max.

It seems to me that at least one of DL's usual gates can also support at least a 767/A330. (I'm not sure about a T7 or one of the larger wide-codies.)

The former customs gates, 20-22, in T2E, could handle wide-bodies but of course those are used exclusively by AS. I don't think they would be available on a regular basis for UA or any other cx. (Perhaps an occasional one-off charter if all the T2W gates were already full of wide-bodies...)

I would assume UA's T7 would probably use gate 47 (or perhaps 46?)

bb

I tried using Google Satellite view, and the stop-markings at the gates are too blurry to read. The only guesses we can make are by size, and I agree the 777 looks to be only able to utilize the highest number gates. Given that these are the "international" gates (as in "capable of"), I doubt anyone one carrier has a lock on them, meaning UA has figured that at least one CUTE gate is available. I guess we'll find out for sure once that first 777 is on the way!

BoeingGuy wrote:

Great analysis, but I hardly think that JL bought 787s just with SAN in mind.

SAN-Tokyo is probably one of many routes for which JL purchased the 787. Bean counters are always looking at potential routes, and the possibility of San Diego has been on their radar for many years. Airlines talk to aircraft manufacturers all the time - and I'm sure a large airline like JL made it clear that an aircraft that could clear the terrain at SAN would be worthy of consideration. Obviously, it's not the only route that 787's were purchased for; however, Boeing and Airbus know all about our airport and its challenges, and kept that in mind. One of a hundred considerations on both ends, I'm sure.

LAOCA wrote:

I thought BA started the nonstop once enough demand for it materialized. The did fly the same aircraft that used to stop in PHX (744).

Oh, goodness - BA and the Bermuda II Treaty...

Bermuda II was a treaty between the U.K. and the U.S., limiting the airports from which service to Heathrow could be flown. At the beginning, LHR was restricted to ONLY two airlines from the U.K. (British Airways and BCal, if I remember correctly) and two airlines from the U.S. (Pan Am and TWA). BCal had the rights to SAN from Gatwick (not Heathrow), but I can't remember if the stopover at LAX was required by law or only for refueling and/or additional passengers. After the merger with BA, this route continued, first via LAX, and then via PHX with the 747-400, then by the 777, and for a while in the early 2000's, it was a non-stop.

But the quirks of the treaty didn't allow OneWorld flyers (such as AA) to earn miles on most BA flights, something Star Alliance and SkyTeam members could do amongst their constituent members. British Airways couldn't fill the plane anymore from SAN, and 9/11 somewhat sealed the deal. I'm not 100% clear on the details of the treaty, but from 2002 to 2010, BA pulled out of SAN completely.

During this time, however, the need to preserve British carriers post-WWII was no longer an issue nearly 60 years later, and the U.K. and the U.S. eventually scrapped the treaty, which changed LHR into a slot-controlled airport, paving the way for a full integration of OneWorld in Heathrow routes, like SkyTeam and Star Alliance had with their European partners. BA could now freely return to SAN from LHR without any restrictions on its frequent flyers, which it did in 2010. It returned first with the 777, then as demand picked up, the 747 became a daily visitor, supplying both the cargo capacity AND premium demand. The economics of this flight, however, came under scrutiny of the bean counters, who figured that the 777-300 met the cargo capacity, the premium demand, the take-off requirements, and could fly this route more economically than the 747-400, which was on its way out anyway.

LAOCA wrote:

I thought BA started the nonstop once enough demand for it materialized. The did fly the same aircraft that used to stop in PHX (744).

This was alluded to in a couple of other replies but I wanted to explicitly state that this is incorrect. The flight via PHX was on a 747-400, and when it changed to nonstop both SAN and PHX had separate 777-200ER flights. I was there for both days, the last day of the 747 at SAN and the next day with the 777 nonstop flight and have pictures somewhere. The 747 came back doing nonstop flights several years later. Also, the flights via PHX as well as the original 777 nonstop flights were to Gatwick; moving the flight to Heathrow also came later.

wedgetail737 wrote:

reednavy wrote:

Get ready for some chaotic operations and issues with the storm system this week, and that's going for all SoCal airports.

At least it's not a hurricane/tropical storm this time.

That, but the amount of LLWS and potential mountain wave turbulence in eastern SD County is going to be stupid.

hawaiian717 wrote:

LAOCA wrote:

I thought BA started the nonstop once enough demand for it materialized. The did fly the same aircraft that used to stop in PHX (744).

This was alluded to in a couple of other replies but I wanted to explicitly state that this is incorrect. The flight via PHX was on a 747-400, and when it changed to nonstop both SAN and PHX had separate 777-200ER flights. I was there for both days, the last day of the 747 at SAN and the next day with the 777 nonstop flight and have pictures somewhere. The 747 came back doing nonstop flights several years later. Also, the flights via PHX as well as the original 777 nonstop flights were to Gatwick; moving the flight to Heathrow also came later.

The point being that it was incorrect that SAN was not capable of a longer haul 747 departure, and that it took waiting for a 777 to fly nonstop to LGW/LHR.

LAOCA wrote:

hawaiian717 wrote:

LAOCA wrote:

I thought BA started the nonstop once enough demand for it materialized. The did fly the same aircraft that used to stop in PHX (744).

This was alluded to in a couple of other replies but I wanted to explicitly state that this is incorrect. The flight via PHX was on a 747-400, and when it changed to nonstop both SAN and PHX had separate 777-200ER flights. I was there for both days, the last day of the 747 at SAN and the next day with the 777 nonstop flight and have pictures somewhere. The 747 came back doing nonstop flights several years later. Also, the flights via PHX as well as the original 777 nonstop flights were to Gatwick; moving the flight to Heathrow also came later.

The point being that it was incorrect that SAN was not capable of a longer haul 747 departure, and that it took waiting for a 777 to fly nonstop to LGW/LHR.

The 747 departed SAN without a full load, in order to allow for the terrain issue. That is why it had a stop between, to load it out (I believe with fuel too).

Tugg

I recall reading an article in the San Diego Union back around 1990 when BA cancelled the LAX-SAN portion of the LGW-LAX-SAN (and return) flight due low yields. The article mentioned that a 747 was not capable of flying from SAN to LON nonstop and could only fly as far as New York with a load of pax and fuel. I wish I could locate this article and I'm regurgitating based on memory. This range restriction was probably limited to the 747 classics at the time (100s,200s,300s, and sp). We now know based on BA's experience that 744 can make trip N/S and be economically viable. I think there was allot of stunned SAN air netters when BA announced the 744 doing the route back in 2015.

Miss seeing pics of the queen landing at SAN. Gave a airport a touch of class.

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

It returned first with the 777, then as demand picked up, the 747 became a daily visitor, supplying both the cargo capacity AND premium demand. The economics of this flight, however, came under scrutiny of the bean counters, who figured that the 777-300 met the cargo capacity, the premium demand, the take-off requirements, and could fly this route more economically than the 747-400, which was on its way out anyway.

I don't think the 77W ever replaced the 744 for the LHR-SAN rotation, I remember the contrary to be planned in 2020. As I recall it, the 772 over time was replaced by the 744 for the winter schedule and by the 77W for the summer schedule. Then in 2020, the 744 was supposed to replace the 77W for the summer schedule as well, which would have given SAN year-round 744 service.

The thing that surprised me was (someone posted it on YouTube) the BA 744 taking off
on runway-9 in heavy fog. I had always thought the 744 could not use runway-9 for takeoffs due
to the terrain issues. An a-netter once posted that a certain model 737 (fully loaded) could not use
runway-9 due to the terrain. I wondered how is that possible when the BA 744, and the 772 were
taking off from runway-9 occasionally due to weather?

There was an interesting comment by Volaris' president in this article:
https://simpleflying.com/volaris-hopefu ... -6-months/

"We're prepared to shift capacity to northbound routes upon Mexico's return to Category 1 status, which we remain optimistic will happen in the next six months." -CEO Beltranena

That timeline seems to coincide finishing construction at the new maintenance hub and the "in-transit" facility at TIJ meant for San Diego passengers coming in by the CBX bridge.

It sure seems like they're lining up to offer, effectively, TJX-branded tickets to/from US cities on a foreign carrier. (feels cabotage-y)

I know the option won't be for everyone. But betcha people's position would change if the tickets are cheap enough.

Here's the Reuter's article pretty much saying the same thing but this time the word "cabotage" was used. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 023-02-22/

santam wrote:

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

It returned first with the 777, then as demand picked up, the 747 became a daily visitor, supplying both the cargo capacity AND premium demand. The economics of this flight, however, came under scrutiny of the bean counters, who figured that the 777-300 met the cargo capacity, the premium demand, the take-off requirements, and could fly this route more economically than the 747-400, which was on its way out anyway.

I don't think the 77W ever replaced the 744 for the LHR-SAN rotation, I remember the contrary to be planned in 2020. As I recall it, the 772 over time was replaced by the 744 for the winter schedule and by the 77W for the summer schedule. Then in 2020, the 744 was supposed to replace the 77W for the summer schedule as well, which would have given SAN year-round 744 service.

As far as the various types of 777, I can't answer to that - much less keep up with all the different types!

When I moved to San Diego in 1999, the flight was a 747-400. Then it was a 777-200. Then it disappeared. Then it returned with a 777-200, then it was a 777-300, then it was a 747-400 again, followed by a 777 of some sort, and now it's an A350-1000.

Someone from British Airways will need to complete the chart!!

One thing I would love to see in the new T1 is a display or mini-museum with PSA artifacts.

SANFan wrote:

LAOCA wrote:

I thought BA started the nonstop once enough demand for it materialized. The did fly the same aircraft that used to stop in PHX (744).

BA re-tried SAN (for the 3rd time!) on June 1, 2011, with the announcement of service in late 2010, almost simultaneously with the announcement/approval of the JV between BA, AA and IB, something they didn't have for the two prior attempts at SAN-service. The first attempt at the market for BA was way back in 1988/9, the second in March 2001 (the first nonstop service, a T7 to LGW.)

They wanted to serve SAN for decades, and tried, but really, the Joint Venture made the difference and Speedbird has been a regular and happy tenant here (with an occasional small blip or two, such as covid) since.

Note: SAN has seen all the largest of BA's modern fleet except for the A380.

bb

The first attempt was essentially British Airways acquiring the route from British Caledonian.

DCAYOW wrote:

SANFan wrote:

LAOCA wrote:

I thought BA started the nonstop once enough demand for it materialized. The did fly the same aircraft that used to stop in PHX (744).

BA re-tried SAN (for the 3rd time!) on June 1, 2011, with the announcement of service in late 2010, almost simultaneously with the announcement/approval of the JV between BA, AA and IB, something they didn't have for the two prior attempts at SAN-service. The first attempt at the market for BA was way back in 1988/9, the second in March 2001 (the first nonstop service, a T7 to LGW.)

They wanted to serve SAN for decades, and tried, but really, the Joint Venture made the difference and Speedbird has been a regular and happy tenant here (with an occasional small blip or two, such as covid) since.

Note: SAN has seen all the largest of BA's modern fleet except for the A380.

bb

The first attempt was essentially British Airways acquiring the route from British Caledonian.

Is SAN popular with UK passengers or is the primary POS US citizens in SAN flying BA to London and across Europe and Africa/ME?

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

When I moved to San Diego in 1999, the flight was a 747-400. Then it was a 777-200. Then it disappeared. Then it returned with a 777-200, then it was a 777-300, then it was a 747-400 again, followed by a 777 of some sort, and now it's an A350-1000.

Someone from British Airways will need to complete the chart!!

If I recall correctly, the post-pandemic return was with the 787-9; the first time BA used the 787 at SAN. I think it then went to the A350-1000, then the 777-200 and now is the A350-1000 again. I may be slightly off with the first two, I know they used the 787-9 for a while here after the pandemic, and I think they brought in the A350 the same time LH came back with the A350-900 to Munich. I know for sure that the 777-200 and then A350 last year as I flew on both (as well as the 747-400 and 777-300 in 2019).

hawaiian717 wrote:

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

When I moved to San Diego in 1999, the flight was a 747-400. Then it was a 777-200. Then it disappeared. Then it returned with a 777-200, then it was a 777-300, then it was a 747-400 again, followed by a 777 of some sort, and now it's an A350-1000.

Someone from British Airways will need to complete the chart!!

If I recall correctly, the post-pandemic return was with the 787-9; the first time BA used the 787 at SAN. I think it then went to the A350-1000, then the 777-200 and now is the A350-1000 again. I may be slightly off with the first two, I know they used the 787-9 for a while here after the pandemic, and I think they brought in the A350 the same time LH came back with the A350-900 to Munich. I know for sure that the 777-200 and then A350 last year as I flew on both (as well as the 747-400 and 777-300 in 2019).

Post-pandemic it was 772 briefly, then 789 for winter 2021/2022, then A351 since summer 2022 (with about 2 months or so of a 772/77W mix in peak summer). I've taken the flight quite a few times since it restarted (and the equipment changed on me a few times).

For the nonstop starting in the 2010s, I don't recall the 744 ever being replaced by a 777. As I remember, the 744 replaced a 777 variant for the winter schedule and in 2020, the 744 was supposed to replace the 77W in the summer as well for year-round 744 service. So the "bean counters" at BA did not seem to find the 747 to be less suitable for LHR-SAN than the 777, if anything it was deemed to be more suitable.

Magnum9 wrote:

DCAYOW wrote:

SANFan wrote:

BA re-tried SAN (for the 3rd time!) on June 1, 2011, with the announcement of service in late 2010, almost simultaneously with the announcement/approval of the JV between BA, AA and IB, something they didn't have for the two prior attempts at SAN-service. The first attempt at the market for BA was way back in 1988/9, the second in March 2001 (the first nonstop service, a T7 to LGW.)

They wanted to serve SAN for decades, and tried, but really, the Joint Venture made the difference and Speedbird has been a regular and happy tenant here (with an occasional small blip or two, such as covid) since.

Note: SAN has seen all the largest of BA's modern fleet except for the A380.

bb

The first attempt was essentially British Airways acquiring the route from British Caledonian.

Is SAN popular with UK passengers or is the primary POS US citizens in SAN flying BA to London and across Europe and Africa/ME?

It is a matter of the premium demand both TO San Diego as well as FROM - separate from the giant gravity well that is LAX - as well as the cargo business has driven this flight. This is what drove some of the upgauges in aircraft since BA's return to SAN: business class wasn't enough, and true first class was implemented. Once the front cabin and cargo holds are filled, everything is is gravy.

It is always easier, however, for foreign airlines to fly to "second-tier" cities, such as San Diego (I HATE saying that, but it's true) that are not a hub for airlines OR are not super-huge mega-demand locations. In the case of British Airways, LHR is their base of operations, and the ability to funnel connecting traffic on BA is much greater than if a U.S.-based airline flew the route. I would imagine that U.S.-based airlines want to utilize the long-haul airplanes needed for a route like this from their hubs or "focus cities".

Question on the late 80s BA service (SAN-LAX-LGW), did they operate out of T1? I recall the ticket counter being next to United's (where WN is now).

nyc77k wrote:

Question on the late 80s BA service (SAN-LAX-LGW), did they operate out of T1? I recall the ticket counter being next to United's (where WN is now).

Yes, as the old international gate was 21:

nyc77k wrote:

Question on the late 80s BA service (SAN-LAX-LGW), did they operate out of T1? I recall the ticket counter being next to United's (where WN is now).

I remember SAN had an international gate on the far south end of T1 back in the 1980's as Gate 1.

nyc77k wrote:

Question on the late 80s BA service (SAN-LAX-LGW), did they operate out of T1? I recall the ticket counter being next to United's (where WN is now).

I took the BA flight back on May of 1990. The check in was indeed next to the UA counters on the eastern end of T1. The flight would board ~ gates 5-6 in the east rotunda of T1. The inbound flight would park by gates1-2 where the original FIS facility was located. Pax would deboard using old fashioned airstrips.

Attached picture (assuming this works) shows the BA flight about to be towed from gates 1-2 to the East rotunda for boarding.

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

N1120A wrote:

For those who are interested, we have a rare VFR day on Runway 9 going on.

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

I wouldn't bet the farm on Condor returning - the SAN-Germany market hasn't fully returned from Covid, and even before it was still looking for the right fit. And I think MUC is a better choice, as the A350 fits perfectly at SAN, and anything else would require four engines, which I believe are on the way out, yes? Obviously not an A380, and the 747-8 would have too much first class that SAN doesn't generate. What A340's are going to be around, and for how long?

Why does this concept pervade? BA has had no problem scheduling 77Ws here. Modern twins have no issue with SAN at all, except for MAYBE requiring 27 in low wind conditions. LH sometimes subbed the A330 during the FRA era. The LH 789s could easily come to SAN if they wanted to bring FRA back, or they could look at the 744 if demand was there.

All planes taking off from SAN must be able to do the following: should an engine failure occur AFTER V1 has been reached - meaning the plane is fully committed to taking off and cannot stop in the space remaining - it must be capable of lifting off, clearing the terrain obstacles at the end of the runway (in this case, Point Loma), and circling around to return for a safe landing.

This has never been an issue for any flights departing SAN for North America, as the combination of passenger weight, cargo and luggage weight, and fuel is well within design specifications.

For flights to farther distances, this was, for many years, a problem. For three-engine aircraft, like BCal''s and BA's DC-10's, this was only a 33% loss in power (and the 747, which would only lose 25% of its power), which both aircraft were more than capable of completing. Further, until the early 2000's, a tech-stop at either LAX or PHX for passengers was always made, so the plane departed SAN with very little fuel anyway. It is not how things would ever be done today; however, this was how BA managed this flight.

With the advent of newer aircraft and newer engines, twin-engine jets became more and more powerful. Just before 9/11, BA was confident enough in their 777's to meet this requirement so that they could indeed fly non-stop from San Diego to London. This flight disappeared in 2002, but reappeared later with both 747's and 777's, all of which obviously met this requirement.

One of the reasons Japan Air Lines purchased the 787 was to fly San Diego to Tokyo non-stop, and the 787 was designed with this route in mind. And even when the 787 was withdrawn temporarily over the battery issue, a 777 was used. My guess is that the operating economics of the 787 are preferred by JAL, since that plane returned very quickly once the battery issue was fixed.

Condor's short-lived service with a 767 obviously didn't have any long-term cargo contracts, as three days a week for a limited period of time isn't going to inspire permanent business deals. We knew this wouldn't last long, and it didn't - it was replaced very quickly with regularly-scheduled year-round Lufthansa flights, which would be based partly on the premium demand driven with cargo contracts.

Lufthansa, on the other hand, had neither A350's nor 787's when mainline LH aircraft began regular service to FRA in 2018. Yes, an A330 has the range to fly Germany to San Diego; however, their A330's were right on the edge of their limits if the plane was fully loaded with passengers and cargo. The A340-300's, on the other hand, were perfect for this route at the time.

LH's return to SAN with the A350 to MUC is, in my opinion, the perfect choice. I like MUC as a hub better than FRA, and the A350 has no worries whatsoever about SAN's terrain clearance. And if LH decides to utilize the 787 from whatever hub they choose (is that an FRA plane, a MUC plane, or both?), this will not be a concern either.

Should AF/KL enter the SAN market, their 777's, 787's, and A350's will all be capable of flying here without any problems. In fact, all future international/long-distance flying will be no problem, as all modern twin-jets are easily capable for flying great distances fully-loaded, from either runway 9 or 27. It must be noted, however, that not every twin-jet flying long distances was or is capable of such a feat. But as time progresses, this "restriction" will become irrelevant, as modern planes replace older planes in airlines' fleets.

Much of this is correct, but the facts are incorrectly applied. First: All aircraft performance minimums is based on one engine out. So a twin has twice the power needed (100%), a quad 33% more.

No matter how many engines, things become critical the closer you get to MTOW for the conditions. There aren't many twins that cannot fill the cabin and fly out of a V1 cut on a short flight like SAN-LHR. This may change for taking off to the east. But Point Loma isn't much of an obstacle at its distance from the runway.

I'm not looking at the numbers and am more familiar with a 742F than a 744, but I find it highly unilkely that a 744 can be payload limited taking off on 27 for a sub 5000nm flight eastbound. This would take a hell of a tailwind down 27, and large radius of anavailble alternates at the other end.

The only twins I can think of that may struggle with this would be an old A300, and possibly, a payload maxed out 763. The latter again in special circumstances. A 330 is simply not going to struggle here.

Could Emirates or Qatar do SAN?

mesasurf wrote:

Could Emirates or Qatar do SAN?

I would love to see another Asian carrier at SAN...maybe KE or Premia?

Samfam1000 wrote:

nyc77k wrote:

Question on the late 80s BA service (SAN-LAX-LGW), did they operate out of T1? I recall the ticket counter being next to United's (where WN is now).

I took the BA flight back on May of 1990. The check in was indeed next to the UA counters on the eastern end of T1. The flight would board ~ gates 5-6 in the east rotunda of T1. The inbound flight would park by gates1-2 where the original FIS facility was located. Pax would deboard using old fashioned airstrips.

Attached picture (assuming this works) shows the BA flight about to be towed from gates 1-2 to the East rotunda for boarding.

The attachment didn’t work but I’d love to check out that photo

LAOCA wrote:

Much of this is correct, but the facts are incorrectly applied. First: All aircraft performance minimums is based on one engine out. So a twin has twice the power needed (100%), a quad 33% more.

No matter how many engines, things become critical the closer you get to MTOW for the conditions. There aren't many twins that cannot fill the cabin and fly out of a V1 cut on a short flight like SAN-LHR. This may change for taking off to the east. But Point Loma isn't much of an obstacle at its distance from the runway.

I'm not looking at the numbers and am more familiar with a 742F than a 744, but I find it highly unilkely that a 744 can be payload limited taking off on 27 for a sub 5000nm flight eastbound. This would take a hell of a tailwind down 27, and large radius of anavailble alternates at the other end.

The only twins I can think of that may struggle with this would be an old A300, and possibly, a payload maxed out 763. The latter again in special circumstances. A 330 is simply not going to struggle here.

A short flight like SAN-LHR?

And a 744 being payload limited? Never on 27. Perhaps on 9 on a Santa Ana day.

wedgetail737 wrote:

mesasurf wrote:

Could Emirates or Qatar do SAN?

I would love to see another Asian carrier at SAN...maybe KE or Premia?

The range capability of an A350 or a 787 might be within the operating parameters, but that might be pushing it.

SAN-LHR = 4,766 nm
SAN-MUC = 5,235 nm
SAN-DOH = 7,277 nm
SAN-DXB = 7,310 nm

My personal guess is that with both LAX and SFO in the state, SAN won't ever see a middle east carrier. Not in my lifetime. It's too long and thin of a route for a connecting service.

Don't get me wrong - my personal wish list for SAN makes it look a lot more like AUS and BOS, with all three alliances represented to Europe (LHR on BA and/or VS, LH to FRA and MUC, alternating on different days, and a mix of KL and AF to both AMS and CDG), COPA to PTY, and at least two carriers to Asia, JL continuing to NRT and a Korean carrier to ICN - but with LAX just up the road (relatively speaking), SAN is always going to have work to maintain international service levels. Premium demand and cargo contracts begin new routes, and they have to NOT pull from LAX. And the bean counters have to notice.

This is being discussed on a couple of other threads but I just wanted to make sure everyone here has heard that AS has renumbered the new IAD-SAN flight as #777 in honor of UA's move to compete, and the SAN-IAD flight will be known as "772"! Very cool move IMO, by the AS network planning/route development department in SEA!

Reminder, SAN-IAD begins on June 15 (along with daily SAN-EUG service!)

I really hope these new routes by AS will be a raging success -- as I think they will be. I stand by my prediction that the Dulles nonstop will see daily-double service before the end of the year!

GO ALASKA!

bb

KL might be tough get with AMS limiting international capacity, there's an entire thread on this subject. Not good news for Sky Team members trying to land nonstop service between AF and KL.

SANFan wrote:

This is being discussed on a couple of other threads but I just wanted to make sure everyone here has heard that AS has renumbered the new IAD-SAN flight as #777 in honor of UA's move to compete, and the SAN-IAD flight will be known as "772"! Very cool move IMO, by the AS network planning/route development department in SEA!

Reminder, SAN-IAD begins on June 15 (along with daily SAN-EUG service!)

I really hope these new routes by AS will be a raging success -- as I think they will be. I stand by my prediction that the Dulles nonstop will see daily-double service before the end of the year!

GO ALASKA!

bb

What was the third new SAN destination for AS? I can't remember.

I still hope for more dot-connecting out of SAN like maybe MFR or maybe even PSC.

Is AS slated to stay in T2 after T1 is done?

wedgetail737 wrote:

What was the third new SAN destination for AS? I can't remember.

I still hope for more dot-connecting out of SAN like maybe MFR or maybe even PSC.

Is AS slated to stay in T2 after T1 is done?

TPA will be added in early Oct.

My guess is MFR has to be pretty high on the SAN-adds list; It's being flown already by G4 (as is Pasco in fact) and MFR is in the heart of AS-territory (as, I guess, is Pasco!) I don't know the traffic numbers for both markets -- I'll try to look them up -- but MFR seems that it would be a larger one, or at least more likely to be added first.

To the best of my knowledge, Chester will be staying put in T2E and my guess is, will remain there even after the terminal is remodeled, the next big project at SDIA! The planning and design for the T2E rebuild/remodel has just begun and will proceed through this year; I have a feeling that AS will be rather involved in that process...

bb

I am still carrying a torch and hoping and praying that Horizon or SkyWest - via AS - will begin SAN-BFL.