Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Trvlr
Topic Author
Posts: 4251
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2000 9:58 am

SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:45 am

This article surfaced in the San Diego Business Journal about two weeks ago, but nobody here made any mention of it.

I think Hampton Brown (Lindbergh's route services director) definitely has the right idea in targeting airlines with 787s for future service. Problem is, 787s won't start arriving until 2008, and airlines' initial priorities with those aircraft almost certainly do not include markets like SAN, PDX, and PHX.

If Lufthansa can do well in Portland, I think they can make a go of it at San Diego. Although Portland has connecting passengers, San Diego is a larger O&D market. Moreover, one of the advantages LH has over BA is a local frequent flyer base (UA Mileage Plus and US Dividend members). However, I have trouble with the notion that even an A330 can make SAN-FRA without a weight restriction. Such a measure would severely impact the profitability of the flight.

At any rate, this article is the clearest indication so far that aircraft performance severely impacts long-haul service out of SAN. The 787 will come to San Diego's rescue eventually, but probably not for the next 3-5 years.

---

Fair use excerpt:

Lindbergh Field To Lufthansa: ‘Come Fly With Us’

Regional Airport in Talks to Land German Carrier
By CONNIE LEWIS

San Diego Business Journal Staff

If the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority’s efforts to lure Lufthansa are successful, the German airline could be the first European carrier to land at Lindbergh Field since British Airways packed its bags and left for the last time in October 2004.

Hampton Brown, who manages the Airport Authority’s route services department, said that talks with the Cologne, Germany-based airline are ongoing and that the agency had recently asked various community organizations, including the San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau, to send letters to the company voicing support.


http://www.sdbj.com/article.asp?aID=...35.7499157.6175435.112&aID2=117086 or go to http://www.sdbj.com and type "Lufthansa" in the Fast Search box on the top of the page
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:48 am

An A330-200 might could. No way an A330-300 could.

NS
 
LHboyatDTW
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:53 pm

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:54 am

This may also lure some O/D traffic away from the LAX market, making it look like a more attractive alternative for som. If any plane will be used, I'm willing to wager on an A343.

Now to me the question is will they follow in BA's footsteps and make it a PHX stopover?
The air in the clouds is very pure and fine, bracing and delicious because it's the same the angels breathe.
 
Bicoastal
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 5:56 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:06 am

Quoting LHboyatDTW (Reply 2):
Now to me the question is will they follow in BA's footsteps and make it a PHX stopover?

Seems like a waste. If a LH aircraft would have to stop at PHX, why not just use Star Alliance partner US Airways to feed SAN traffic to PHX for the LH flight? Don't know what the cargo demand would be from SAN.
Airliners.net has many forums. It has spell check and search functions. Use them before posting!
 
Trvlr
Topic Author
Posts: 4251
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2000 9:58 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:14 am

LH, nor any other carrier, would do a one-stop to SAN. That just doesn't happen in the U.S. market anymore.

Does LH even have 330-200s?
 
LHboyatDTW
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:53 pm

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:18 am

Quoting Trvlr (Reply 4):
Does LH even have 330-200s?


not anymore, and from personal experience on board one I'm glad they're gone.
The air in the clouds is very pure and fine, bracing and delicious because it's the same the angels breathe.
 
Qantas744er
Posts: 1221
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:36 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:26 am

Only problem i see is the aircraft type if the plane goes non-stop. The A333 can't do it and they don't have A332 anymore. And this would also be a problem for the A343 which has proved itself on SXM-ORY from SXM's 2500 Meter runway.
SAN has around 2700 meters but SAN-FRA is a little longer than SXM-ORY so without major weight restriction the A343 wont do it either. The only possible option i see is the 744. Yes at first it make sno sence but i did some runway length/max weight calculations and this is what i get

For todays Weather conditions at SAN

Wind 310/09kts
Temp: 21C
Pressure 30,14in

Departure Runway 27

FLAPS - 20
AIR COND - OFF
NAC A/I - OFF

MAX TOW - 380671
ACT TOW - 379000

MSTOW - 394000
FIELD - 380671 LIMIT
TIRE - 450000
CLIMB - 434486
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THRUST CONF: TO (105.9% N1)
VMCG - 125

V1 - 151
VR - 167
V2 - 178

VREF30- 179
MARGIN- 100ft

So to clear it up for today the 744 could have a max takeoff weight of 380617 kgs. and with 379000 kgs. would manage a perfect Flaps 20, Packs off takeoff and spare 100ft of runway.

BTW 394000 Kgs. is the MTOW of LH's 744's and so this takeoff would 14 tonnes under MTOW. (performance limited)

Note: all weights in Kgs. all lengths in feet

Leo
You live and you die, by the FMA
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:28 am

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 1):
An A330-200 might could. No way an A330-300 could.

Neither can. Theres 7,600' of takeoff distance at best with the required climb rate.

Having market demand and having the physical ability to support that demand are two entirely different issues and right now, regardless the wishes of any marketing person or desire of an airline, the runway at SAN has too many obstructions and too steep a climb gradient to effectively support long haul service. Airlines will try, and just like BA, they will fail. SAN is a market that requires normal fares to support long haul service, trying to make that equation work with premium fares is a recipe for failure. Even the use of the 787, while better than a 777 economically, is questionable there. The A340 won't fare much better.

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 6):
BTW 394000 Kgs. is the MTOW of LH's 744's and so this takeoff would 14 tonnes under MTOW. (performance limited)

Assuming the market could support a plane of that size.

A 777-200LR could do it, but whats the point of using a 7,500nm bird on a 5,000nm trip.

Quoting Trvlr (Thread starter):
I think Hampton Brown (Lindbergh's route services director) definitely has the right idea in targeting airlines with 787s for future service. Problem is, 787s won't start arriving until 2008, and airlines' initial priorities with those aircraft almost certainly do not include markets like SAN, PDX, and PHX.

The 787-8 takes a 40% payload hit and the -9 about a 36% payload hit due to terrain. If they do it, it'll come at a premium.

[Edited 2007-09-12 19:40:59]
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24824
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:30 am

Quoting LHboyatDTW (Reply 2):
If any plane will be used, I'm willing to wager on an A343.

The A343 would be in the water on its take-off roll... SAN has a short'ish 9,400ft runway which limits any significant payload uplift.

BA tried various forms of service to SAN for many years however at the end threw in the towel.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
Qantas744er
Posts: 1221
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:36 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:43 am

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 8):
BA tried various forms of service to SAN for many years however at the end threw in the towel.

Yes but BA could have gone no problem to LHR from SAN at the same weights i have just given for the LH 744. This ofcourse because LHR is closer to SAN then FRA is. Problem was there simply was not a market to support a 744 via PHX and later they threw the non-stop 777 aswell.

Leo
You live and you die, by the FMA
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:54 am

Quoting Bicoastal (Reply 3):
why not just use Star Alliance partner US Airways to feed SAN traffic to PHX for the LH flight

Because those flights are already 80% full, meaning, because SAN cannot support a 787 or other 200 seater to Europe and Asia, the domestic flights are filling up with connecting passengers that would otherwise be flying direct.

A 787 trip to Europe will cost the airline about $75k (including direct and indirect costs). Now, this is a route length that shouldn’t have any weight penalty for the 787 that can do 5,500nm with 100k payload, and could be done from a runway roughly 9,200’ in length with no terrain. If you figure, 230 seats on average and 200 are full, the average one way seat cost is at least $375 (assuming the ticket is at cost). Then you have to figure you can take about 10k of cargo at $2.00 a pound ($20K in revenue) vs. the capability of the aircraft at about $45k ($90k in revenue). Wake up San Diego and build a new airport or get a bulldozer and take out Loma Portal.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24824
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:05 am

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 9):

Dont forget SAN has obstacle clearance requirements for both directions on 09/27. 09 in particular is difficult with many airlines publishing their own custom (and often more restrictive) engine-out departure procedures.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
worldrider
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:26 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:16 am

Quoting LHboyatDTW (Reply 5):

that's just personal opinion...the A332 is the sweeetest plane i have ever flown and i have flown avery type

cheers
 
san747
Posts: 4361
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:03 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:39 am

Well let's see what happens here. Frankly, I'm just happy to see the SAN authority doing anything remotely productive in the short term... If they can successfully lure LH, I'm sure they could find a way to make it work. Maybe this time, the authority might decide to subsidize the route like it DIDN'T do with BA, but should've.
Scotty doesn't know...
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:19 am

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 6):
And this would also be a problem for the A343 which has proved itself on SXM-ORY from SXM's 2500 Meter runway.

Not to be nit-picky, but it's 2350m.

Assuming a 2700m rwy, normal sea level pressure and a temperature of ISA+15°C (which gives 30°C), an A343 with -5C4 engines could have a takeoff weight of about 265-270 tonnes, 5-10 tonnes below MTOW. But IIRC, LH's aircraft are limited at 271 tonnes anyway.

But I don't know about climb restrictions, maybe someone with more knowledge could comment on that.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
User avatar
SANFan
Posts: 5434
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:10 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:37 am

Subsidies is how PDX got things rolling with LH. Fortunately (for PDX) they have a beautiful, grown-up, major-league airport so they didn't have to try to figure out how the heck to operationally get the plane in and out, just financially. And they did a great job of it -- stealing LH away from SEA.

It seems that some sort of creative tag-on (via Canada -- if the 5th Freedom issue ever gets sorted out -- or PHX, SFO or even PDX) or circle-tripping (e.g. FRA-SAN-ONT/LAX/LAS-FRA) is the only way this is going to work until either a new SAN exists or a/c are flying that will permit financial viability of intercontinental flights out of Lindbergh.

Quoting Trvlr (Reply 4):
LH, nor any other carrier, would do a one-stop to SAN. That just doesn't happen in the U.S. market anymore.

I know this is not a popular notion these days but IF Lufthansa (and the SDCRAA) want this to happen badly enough, I wouldn't rule out a tag-on completely. I know that LH has had its eye on San Diego for many years and is apparently still interested in somehow making it work.

There is little doubt that SAN is a very succulent, ripe and virtually untapped intercontinental market (I've given stat's many times previously) that must have many cx drooling at the potential here. Of course the crowding and mess that is LAX these days only helps fuel the interest in Lindbergh.

It is encouraging to see interest from foreign flags such as PR and LH (and I still believe that someone will be flying between SAN and London next year  Wink ) even though nothing (so far) ever happens. Once there appears to be no more interest, then we may as well give up!

Given all the rumors about LH and PHX, wouldn't it be a hoot if the Germans snuck a deal and ended up in San Diego before (or at the same time as) Sky Harbor?  Smile

Good luck Hampton et al in your efforts on the LH, as well as all other, fronts! I know the entire German community in San Diego is behind you on this. Go get 'em, SDCRAA!!!

bb
 
Beaucaire
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 4:48 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:20 am

Stupid question : would it be technically feasable to add 300 meters to the existing runway to bring it to 3000 meters ?
That would eventually open the door to accomodate not only LH but also BA and/or Air France

[Edited 2007-09-12 22:21:19]
Please respect animals - don't eat them...
 
adicool
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:38 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:35 am

LH should first think about starting service to PHX, SEA and maybe YXD or so...
then we can think about SAN...
 
san747
Posts: 4361
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:03 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:30 am

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 16):
Stupid question : would it be technically feasable to add 300 meters to the existing runway to bring it to 3000 meters ?
That would eventually open the door to accomodate not only LH but also BA and/or Air France

Maybe in the short term. If you see this Google maps shot below, you'll notice there is that small inlet of water then some sparsely spaced buildings which you could extend the runway on. The only question is, are those buildings to the west part of MCRD or is that only the area north of the field?

http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/8766/sanwestqp3.jpg

There would still be terrain issues, but the longer length of the runway would improve the situation somewhat.
Scotty doesn't know...
 
N1120A
Posts: 26581
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:44 am

Quoting Trvlr (Thread starter):
Although Portland has connecting passengers,

Not particularly. Portland has local subsidies.

Quoting Trvlr (Thread starter):
However, I have trouble with the notion that even an A330 can make SAN-FRA without a weight restriction

The A333 would have no chance at all. Even out of LAX, which has unlimited runway performance for all intents and purposes, EI on a noticeably shorter flight to Dublin has used the A332 from the start. As far as the A332 goes, the raw range and performance is absolutely there, the problem is SAN's take off requirements. Even a 763ER would have to take off restricted.

Quoting LHboyatDTW (Reply 2):
This may also lure some O/D traffic away from the LAX market

It would be minimal.

Quoting LHboyatDTW (Reply 2):
If any plane will be used, I'm willing to wager on an A343.

And you would lose that wager to weight restrictions

Quoting LHboyatDTW (Reply 5):

not anymore, and from personal experience on board one I'm glad they're gone.

That had nothing to do with the aircraft, rather the previous carrier, Sabena.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 7):


A 777-200LR could do it, but whats the point of using a 7,500nm bird on a 5,000nm trip.

The 772LR has a potentially lower CASM than its sister 772ER on trips around 5000nm or more. BTW, that is an 8500nm real world bird, not 7500nm.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 8):
SAN has a short'ish 9,400ft runway which limits any significant payload uplift.

The runway length is of little issue, as it is long enough and SAN is essentially at sea level and rarely sees hot weather.

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 9):

Your numbers leave out the great big hills on Point Loma and the buildings in downtown San Diego. Both of those kill take off performance.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4711
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:44 am

The plane that LH would need to fly would require both the filling of the premium cabin on every flight (80% of the flight is paid for by 20% of the cabin, yes?) and a generous cargo capacity, filled on every flight. I think given the terrain obstacles and size limitations of the SAN market, the 787 is really the only plane (other than possibly the A350) that realistically could do SAN-Europe.

One of the other things that killed the BA flight to LHR was the "fly American only" rule for Americans on government business. If Star Alliance passengers on government business could fly SAN-FRA on this non-stop flight, there would be additional reason to start it.

Personally, I would LOVE to see an LH 787 flying in over Balboa Park...in addition to BA returning...and PL flying SAN-YVR-MNL...and ANA to NRT...yes, I want it all!!
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
User avatar
SANFan
Posts: 5434
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:10 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:46 am

Quoting Adicool (Reply 17):
LH should first think about starting service to PHX, SEA and maybe YXD or so...
then we can think about SAN...

Oh yes, by all means, take care of everyone else first, then maybe get around to thinking about San Diego...

Something Trvlr didn't post from the BJ article (and part of the stat's that I said I have previously posted) include:
... figures that the Airport Authority keeps show that there are total of 1,200 passengers a day bound for Europe, including those coming and going from Lindbergh Field.
"That's more than sufficient in our view to support daily service to a European hub," Brown said. "San Diego is the largest U.S. city in terms of market size and passengers today without service to Europe."


PHX and SEA (and PDX) already have service to Europe; SAN does not. Period. And 600 one way pax/day does not seem insignificant to me. Also, I'm not sure that the "1,200 passenger" figure mentioned actually includes all those SAN-originating folks that start their trip to Europe at LAX and thus show up as part of their numbers. In other words, that figure could be misleadingly low.

bb
 
LHboyatDTW
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:53 pm

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:59 am

Quoting Worldrider (Reply 12):

I'm sure any A332 would be great (i.e. KL), but the LH A332 I flew had vomit stains all around my seat and looked very worn (also the IFE was a joke compared to what is normally on LH IFE). Apart from the mechanical issues before the flight, It seemed as if LH didn't bother keeping the plane in good condition, so it was LH's fault to an extent. Had it been the LH norm, the plane would have looked in better shape and my seat would not have remnants of puke around it.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
It would be minimal.

key word there, "some". Then again, I've heard rumors of people wanting a LAX-SAN flight because the traffic is so bad. If that's any indication, I'm confident they can lure a fair amount away from the LAX market. With SNA-LAX still being around, a SAN-LAX flight can't be too off the wall in comparison.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
And you would lose that wager to weight restrictions

I probably didn't make myself clear on that. Mainly due to capacity, as it is their smallest plane that can make it direct without as severe an impact on restrictions as the A330. However, the PHX tag-on idea I thought of may change the perspective of some regarding an A343. To me that seems to be the only way SAN can get a European carrier back without feeding the pax to a Star Alliance hub.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
That had nothing to do with the aircraft, rather the previous carrier, Sabena.

read above. Had it been kept up to LH's standards of maintenance and cleanliness, I wouldn't have minded being on that plane. Although in retrospect, our flight was delayed by a good hour mainly to mechanical issues.
The air in the clouds is very pure and fine, bracing and delicious because it's the same the angels breathe.
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:19 am

SAN has a lot of potential for international travel. It can take some of the strain off LAX and also give SAN county an easier way to travel. The 787 seems to have been made for airports like SAN but the weight issues are a problem and the fact that LH does not even have any 787s on order. Even with weight restrictions the 787 is so much more efficient it seems like the flights would still be profitable. But what other planes would be profitable even with weight restrictions?
 
N1120A
Posts: 26581
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:20 am

Quoting LHboyatDTW (Reply 22):
Then again, I've heard rumors of people wanting a LAX-SAN flight because the traffic is so bad.

There are 40 flights per day, in each direction, on 3 airlines, between the two cities. There are also another 5 each way between LAX and Carlsbad. Further, there is a better than hourly train service between the two cities, with both bus and rail connections at L.A. Union Station for LAX.

Quoting LHboyatDTW (Reply 22):
Mainly due to capacity, as it is their smallest plane that can make it direct without as severe an impact on restrictions as the A330.

The A330 would likely be less, not more, restricted than the A343.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:22 am

AFAIK, the A346 performs better on short runways than the A343.

Another possibility would be to do it by LX with A332.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:22 am

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 16):
Stupid question : would it be technically feasable to add 300 meters to the existing runway to bring it to 3000 meters ?
That would eventually open the door to accomodate not only LH but also BA and/or Air France

Unless you add runway length at the east end of the airport, you gain nothing for runway 27 and even if you could add length at the east end, you need a safety area (which doesn't exist today). If you leveled everything to the freeway you net about 1,300'. 1,000' of that goes to a safety area (The FAA does not allow EMAS use unless the runway is existing at that length but lacks a safety area. If the goal is to extend the runway, then a full safety area must be accomodated). The terrain and obstructions is what limits the runway and the obstructions are the hills, tree's and peoples homes. Runway 9 has about 6,400 feet of takeoff distance obstructions and terrian factored.

Like I said, the takeoff distance is about 7,600' even though the runway is 9,401' because of the terrain/obstructions and 6,400' for runway 9.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
The 772LR has a potentially lower CASM than its sister 772ER on trips around 5000nm or more. BTW, that is an 8500nm real world bird, not 7500nm.

At max payload it's a 7,500nm bird. It's still pointless to use it out of SAN when you could be using it somewhere else.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
The runway length is of little issue, as it is long enough and SAN is essentially at sea level and rarely sees hot weather.

The runway is the issue because of where it was placed. Even if you removed everything from the hillside, the peak of Loma Portal is 300' at 1.2 nautical miles. Single engine climb rates are protected to 250' per nm and the standard is 200'. Like I said, no matter what you do, you gain nothing. You have to reduce a swath of Point Loma by 117' in height by 2500' wide.

Quoting San747 (Reply 18):
Maybe in the short term. If you see this Google maps shot below, you'll notice there is that small inlet of water then some sparsely spaced buildings which you could extend the runway on. The only question is, are those buildings to the west part of MCRD or is that only the area north of the field?

That area cannot be expanded upon and the land beyond is MCRD (before the water) and the NTC site that has been re-developed.

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 23):
But what other planes would be profitable even with weight restrictions?

None.

[Edited 2007-09-13 04:28:41]
 
juventus
Posts: 2017
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:12 pm

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:28 am

I hope this becomes a reality. SAN deserves so much more, and I'm sure it can easily support flights from Europe. As far as LH " should look at SEA and PHX first", I disagree. San Diego can match those two on many categories, tourism, business, etc
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24824
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:43 am

SAN certainly has people headed to/from Europe, however besides the runway issue there are a few other issues which put a damper on the market.

1) Minimal premium demand - BA when it served SAN with the 777s allocated its non premium configured birds
2) Cargo. While San Diego seems like a descent size city it very much lacks the freight forwarder community and much of the industry that requires air freight to Europe. BA used to on occasion truck down cargo from LAX to load on their SAN flights during times of low passenger bookings.
3) Closeness to LA. The cities are separated by mere 100 miles. For an airline it a much lower risk and lower cost venture to build LAX frequencies. Look at BA - 3x daily at LAX.

p.s. - you'll probably appreciate my last comment more very soon when news of more LA-FRA service is announced by a Star carrier, which in my opinion further precludes/delays any chance for SAN.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:40 pm

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 28):
3) Closeness to LA. The cities are separated by mere 100 miles. For an airline it a much lower risk and lower cost venture to build LAX frequencies. Look at BA - 3x daily at LAX.

yes but it sucks to drive all the way up there and hassle with the traffic when you can go right down to SAN
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24824
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:59 pm

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 29):
yes but it sucks to drive all the way up there and hassle with the traffic when you can go right down to SAN

I agree with you, however you are looking at it in the eyes of a local. Instead look at it from the eyes of an airlines route planning department that sits 5000+miles away from SAN.

If they have one SoCal flight they could add with SAN looking interesting, but at the same time LA could certainly support the added flight as well -- What do you do? Many would simply opt to continue building LA as its an established and much larger market with the airlines infrastructure in place already.
In addition the airline knows it will still get SAN folks flowing over LA, while a SAN flight would have to be self supporting as no one from LA is going to head south to catch the one off flight.


I totally agree SAN deserves and should have intercontinental services, however there are too many little issues which make a potential route less and less attractive. LA being 100 only miles away being one.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
Bicoastal
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 5:56 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:13 pm

Just a note here....LAX is but one of many gateways to Europe and Asia used by San Diegans. San Diegans have one stop to Asia and Europe through.....SFO, ORD, DEN, IAD, JFK, ATL, CVG, DTW, DFW, MSP, PHL, YVR, YYZ and likely a few more I have missed.
Airliners.net has many forums. It has spell check and search functions. Use them before posting!
 
DCAYOW
Posts: 548
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:24 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:14 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 7):
Airlines will try, and just like BA, they will fail.

BA didn't fail primarily because of the runway. It failed because

- It didn't have an immunized alliance with BA (and therefore premium traffic continued to flow over hubs on AA)
- Huge defense contractors (SAIC, Titan etc) could not use the flight under government rules
- Flight never operated at consistent times (different slot allocations) especially after it was transfered to LHR - anyone will tell you that itself is a recipe for failure with premium traffic. Also, wasn't daily.
- The aviation industry had just experience one of the most tumultuous periods in its history, 9/11, SARS, second gulf war - San Diego's network was not immune from these macro-economic factors.
Retorne ao céu...
 
User avatar
gunsontheroof
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:30 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:37 pm

LH could have success here in the way they have at PDX where they're the only show in a town that can probably support 5-7 flights a week. I could see them starting PHX before SAN due to the much larger market and room for competition there, but SEA would be surprising given their existing service at YVR and PDX as well as competition from BA, SK, NW and AF. The only way I could see them starting SEA would be if they were moving to beef up Star Alliance's presence at SEA, which I don't really see happening. It'd be good to see SAN get that flight to Europe, but I'm not holding my breath.
Picked a hell of a week to quit sniffing glue.
 
SANMAN66
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:37 pm

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:41 pm

Reading the article.It said an A310 would be suitable for service for SAN. Does LH still have A310s? If so, would they have
the range to do SAN-FRA nonstop? My guess they were talking about an A330 or A340. I always thought that an A310 was a medium to short range aircraft. Of course everyone in this thread believes that this is doomed for failure like BA,but
I will give the SDCRAA credit for finally doing something to improve Lindbergh while we wait for another opportunity to seek
out a new airport site.I agree with everyone that we need a new airport without all those runway problems,but this is better than them simply sitting around talking about it like they've done in the past.
PSA Gives you a lift!
 
User avatar
SANFan
Posts: 5434
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:10 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:02 pm

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 30):
If they have one SoCal flight they could add with SAN looking interesting, but at the same time LA could certainly support the added flight as well -- What do you do? Many would simply opt to continue building LA as its an established and much larger market with the airlines infrastructure in place already.
In addition the airline knows it will still get SAN folks flowing over LA, while a SAN flight would have to be self supporting as no one from LA is going to head south to catch the one off flight.

I must disagree with you, Lax'.

LAX is indeed a much larger market, no question. It is also a much more crowded airport and getting more so every year, with "suggestions" by the local government that other airports be utilized. If I were a major foreign flag, either one already serving LAX or one contemplating such service, and I were thinking of the future (when perhaps no more service is allowed at LAX), I'd consider looking at alternate solutions NOW to serve Southern Cal; ONT and SAN are the two best possibilities. Why not get a foot in the door in SAN, a separate but large market including Northern Mexico, 20 miles to the south of LIndbergh, currently without any intercontinental service at all.

Also, someone mentioned the 3 n/s Speedbirds from LA to LHR now. Remember that when SAN-LHR was operating, they seemed to get by with 2x daily from LA. I am confident that if PR or LH or ?? added a SAN flight, it would reduce some of the need for more LA service.

Finally, I would not be so certain that some travellers in the southern LA-metro area (Orange County, Riverside, etc.) would not (and in fact do not already) prefer to drive south to Lindbergh (not a huge difference in time or distance from LAX) and fly out of a much smaller (and perhaps a nicer) airport. This of course assumes the service and fares are comparable. If in fact there were intercontinental n/s from Lindbergh, and as the Bradley Terminal as well as the rest of LAX gets more and more packed, I believe SAN might well become a more appealing alternative.

bb
 
columba
Posts: 5238
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:12 pm

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:56 pm

Quoting Worldrider (Reply 12):
Quoting LHboyatDTW (Reply 5):

that's just personal opinion...the A332 is the sweeetest plane i have ever flown and i have flown avery type

cheers

I think he mean the LH A332 and not the A332 in general. The LH A332 were former Sabena aircraft and supposed to be in pretty bad shape in comparision with other LH aircraft.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:55 pm

Quoting SANFan (Reply 35):
Finally, I would not be so certain that some travellers in the southern LA-metro area (Orange County, Riverside, etc.) would not (and in fact do not already) prefer to drive south to Lindbergh (not a huge difference in time or distance from LAX) and fly out of a much smaller (and perhaps a nicer) airport.

The traffic south to San Diego from Orange County on I-5 is as bad or worse than north to LAX on the 405.

Any SAN-Europe flight will need to be subsidized quite heavily by someone as the demand is marginal (no hub to feed the flight) and the runway is basically to short for any meaningful cargo ops. I would submit that San Diego needs to figure out their long term airport situation before they get into the route subsidy business.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:05 am

Quoting DCAYOW (Reply 32):
BA didn't fail primarily because of the runway. It failed because

- It didn't have an immunized alliance with BA (and therefore premium traffic continued to flow over hubs on AA)
- Huge defense contractors (SAIC, Titan etc) could not use the flight under government rules
- Flight never operated at consistent times (different slot allocations) especially after it was transfered to LHR - anyone will tell you that itself is a recipe for failure with premium traffic. Also, wasn't daily.
- The aviation industry had just experience one of the most tumultuous periods in its history, 9/11, SARS, second gulf war - San Diego's network was not immune from these macro-economic factors.

And when the sevrice fails this time around, you'll understand the forementioned reasons were not the cause. You can dream all you like.

Quoting Bicoastal (Reply 31):
Just a note here....LAX is but one of many gateways to Europe and Asia used by San Diegans. San Diegans have one stop to Asia and Europe through.....SFO, ORD, DEN, IAD, JFK, ATL, CVG, DTW, DFW, MSP, PHL, YVR, YYZ and likely a few more I have missed.

And when those flights are full, then what? A cruise ship?

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 28):
Cargo. While San Diego seems like a descent size city it very much lacks the freight forwarder community and much of the industry that requires air freight to Europe. BA used to on occasion truck down cargo from LAX to load on their SAN flights during times of low passenger bookings.

If you can't carry the cargo in the first place, its a bit imposible to determine whether it exists in the first place.

At the end of the day, Lufthansa doesn't have an aircraft for this route. They need a 787 or A350 to even try.

[Edited 2007-09-13 17:09:18]
 
Qantas744er
Posts: 1221
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:36 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:20 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
Your numbers leave out the great big hills on Point Loma and the buildings in downtown San Diego. Both of those kill take off performance.

Wrong, these numbers include the minimum clib gradient required for T/O included in the runway 27 SID.

Note, i did not do this by simply looking at the runway length, TOW etc. etc.

I used a 747-400 Runway/takeoff performance calculator. For example it knows the minimum conditions required for climb at SAN because it has SAN stored in it and i do not need to tell it.

The data i provided includes everything, Takeoff/engine out performance/Climb/ minimum climb gradient etc.

Leo
You live and you die, by the FMA
 
DUSdude
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 4:20 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:27 am

Quoting Trvlr (Thread starter):
Moreover, one of the advantages LH has over BA is a local frequent flyer base (UA Mileage Plus and US Dividend members).

Sorry, but how is that different from BA which could have tapped into the AA Advantage frequent flyer base? I don't really see how LH would have an advantage there.

Not to stir up a hornet's nest (pun intended), but can someone just recap why the whole plan to turn Miramar into a new San Diego airport and close Lindbergh never materialized? It just seems that, 787 or not, there isn't really much growth that SAN can support one way or another simply due to limitations of terrain and the proximity to so much urbanity.
 
itsnotfinals
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:51 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:35 am

Quoting LHboyatDTW (Reply 2):
PHX stopover?

PHX still has daily B744 service to LHR on BA
Speedbird 178 Heavy, FINAL runway 27L
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:38 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
Your numbers leave out the great big hills on Point Loma and the buildings in downtown San Diego. Both of those kill take off performance.

Quads are generally unaffected by the terrain where twins are. The problem is the net runway length required for the quads.

Quoting DUSdude (Reply 40):
Not to stir up a hornet's nest (pun intended), but can someone just recap why the whole plan to turn Miramar into a new San Diego airport and close Lindbergh never materialized?

Politics.

BTW DCAYOW... If the service goes I'll dance on a table and eat crow because I'd love to see it, the economics simply dictate otherwise.

[Edited 2007-09-13 17:41:43]
 
YULWinterSkies
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:42 pm

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:41 am

I'm quoting the paper here:
"While the carrier’s fleet includes The Boeing Co.’s 747 aircraft that would not be suitable for service to San Diego, its smaller, 247-seat Airbus A310s would be, he said."

Where on Earth have you guys seen that A330 rumor? they mention an A310, which for sure is a typo! Shall we read A340 instead? A route that is indeed perfectly suited for the size and range of the A340-300.
When I doubt... go running!
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4711
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:50 am

Quote:
Not to stir up a hornet's nest (pun intended), but can someone just recap why the whole plan to turn Miramar into a new San Diego airport and close Lindbergh never materialized? It just seems that, 787 or not, there isn't really much growth that SAN can support one way or another simply due to limitations of terrain and the proximity to so much urbanity.

Because San Diego still has a VERY large ex-military community and shall we say, "overly exciteable military supporters" who views any conversation with the military about possible joint use as complete and total surrender to the Godless communists..., er, sorry, wrong decade...Al Qaeda or Osama.

Having said that, IF the marines announced they were fully and truly committed to Miramar for the next 100 years and would promise never to leave, I would be the first to support them. However, situations change constantly, and as was seen in the last round of base closings, Miramar could be closed and operations consolidated elsewhere.

What the advisory vote said was, "IF the military says there's room, and IF the situation allows, should the airport board explore the possibility of a joint-use airport at Miramar?". What the public was told was, "Should we, the American public, tell our brave men and women in the military who are risking life and limb at this time of never-ending war, to get the hell out of Miramar so we can take over the site and put in an airport that San Diego doesn't need because we have LAX just a short drive up the road?"

You can't argue with hysteria. I wrote a letter to the editor of the San Diego newspaper, stating that (a) I was not suggesting for or against the Miramar proposal, and (b) I was only pointing out that the argument of "let LAX handle everything in southern California" could not be used anymore (along with the information about the Master Plan agreement and website), and (c) at some point LAX was going to reach complete capacity and would start turning passengers away.

I had not one, but two teachers at my school - fellow colleagues who stress "read everything carefully before making up your mind!!" - accuse me of wanting to put airplanes over their houses (never mind the F-18's screaming in low and fast in practice maneuvers), and to stop advocating for a dangerous new airport. Quite frankly, I lost a LOT of respect for them that day - not because of their position, but because they don't practice what they preach.

Airports in southern California are nothing but lightning rods for controversy. You might as well try and make Social Security solvent, because no logical argument will EVER change people's minds down here.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
Trvlr
Topic Author
Posts: 4251
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2000 9:58 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Fri Sep 14, 2007 1:28 am

Here's some information I received from someone with regard to LH A340 performance at SAN. I'm not sure it takes into account climb rate adjusted for elevation. Take it for what it's worth.

LH A340 max. take of weight is 178000kg
with rwy 27; wind calm; temp 25c; qnh 29.92; a/i off; a/c off the
max tow will be 258000kg
with rwy 09 and same figures max. tow will be 235000kg

with rwy 27 at SAN and a load of 36470kg (ZFW: 170000kg) you have
a act. TOW of 245000kg. take off fuel will be 75000kg and you have
13000kg underload.
that means, the route SAN-FRA is within the range of LH 340-300

Quoting DUSdude (Reply 40):
Quoting Trvlr (Thread starter):
Moreover, one of the advantages LH has over BA is a local frequent flyer base (UA Mileage Plus and US Dividend members).

Sorry, but how is that different from BA which could have tapped into the AA Advantage frequent flyer base? I don't really see how LH would have an advantage there.

Antitrust rulings prevent American Airlines and British Airways from cooperating on a number of levels, ranging from pricing to frequent flyer programs. As such, AAdvantage members cannot accrue or redeem miles for USA-London travel on British Airways, and Executive Club members cannot accrue or redeem miles for USA-London travel on American Airlines.
 
User avatar
Coronado990
Posts: 1517
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:12 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Fri Sep 14, 2007 1:42 am

How to get your foot in the door at Miramar...

Step 1) Beg the Marines to please let us move cargo operations to Miramar. Sorting ops would be nearer to Kearny Mesa, the so called center of the county's business and population center, and no more
4am-5am landings at Lindbergh Field. This would also open a 24hr cargo airport within the city limits. Yield: 12-15 flights a day mainly at night.

Step 2) Instead of spending money on insane studies we need like a hole in the head telling us Miramar is the best place for a larger airport, let's go ahead and use that money to subsidize two or three international airlines and once service is established and proven necessary to the San Diego economy, beg the Marines to pretty please let us move international ops to your lovely 12,000 foot runway.
Yield: 4-6 flights a day to work around touch-and-goes training flights.

Step 3) Get together with Miramar on working out a contingency plan for diversions. Lindbergh has only one runway and if it shut down, that's it. We need to have a place to move to and move quickly. Get the Marines involved. They are good at this sort of stuff.
SFO=NoCal LAX=SoCal SAN=LoCal
 
Marcus
Posts: 1665
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2001 5:08 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Fri Sep 14, 2007 1:44 am

Quoting SANFan (Reply 35):
a separate but large market including Northern Mexico, 20 miles to the south of LIndbergh, currently without any intercontinental service at all.

Nope.....TIJ has direct service to NRT on AM's 777........sure it is just 2x a week and is basically a technical stop of MEX-NRT, but it is still better than nothing.
Kids!....we are going to the happiest place on earth...TIJUANA! signed: Krusty the Clown
 
DUSdude
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 4:20 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:13 am

Thanks for the summary, PanAm747.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 44):
Because San Diego still has a VERY large ex-military community and shall we say, "overly exciteable military supporters" who views any conversation with the military about possible joint use as complete and total surrender to the Godless communists..., er, sorry, wrong decade...Al Qaeda or Osama.

One would think that would be an argument for the Marines to move out, since bases in heavily populated regions are more easily spied upon than in remote areas.
 
Qantas744er
Posts: 1221
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:36 am

RE: SAN In Talks With Lufthansa

Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:31 am

Quoting Trvlr (Reply 45):
LH A340 max. take of weight is 178000kg
with rwy 27; wind calm; temp 25c; qnh 29.92; a/i off; a/c off the
max tow will be 258000kg
with rwy 09 and same figures max. tow will be 235000kg

with rwy 27 at SAN and a load of 36470kg (ZFW: 170000kg) you have
a act. TOW of 245000kg. take off fuel will be 75000kg and you have
13000kg underload.
that means, the route SAN-FRA is within the range of LH 340-300

Note, LH's A343 MTOW for the A340-311 is 257,000 kgs. anf for the A340-313X is 271,000 kgs.

So with the 311's the full takeoff weight can be achieved on 27 and on 9 a loss of 36,000kgs of TOW

Performance wise the 744 will still be the player here, being able to bring out the highest revenue payload. Af course if there is demand for it.

BTW your figures are base on standard, sea level conditions and so are better for perfomance conditions for the plane than mine with wind, temp, and pressure data from a normal 12th of September.

Try the calculations with the current MX at SAN

METAR KSAN 131651Z VRB03KT 10SM CLR 22/16 A2997 RMK AO2 SLP149 T02220161

So

Wind: Variable at 3 kts. (runway 27 in operation)
Pressure: 29,97 in
Temp: 22 celcius

Leo  Smile

Leo
You live and you die, by the FMA

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