$1.4 Billion for New SA Airport Terminal.

[ged_782]

San Antonio International reported record passenger counts last year, but according to this article by Heywood Sanders, that growth wasn't very impressive, compared to other markets.
https://www.sacurrent.com/news/san-a...rwise-33862860

[RadiantBaby]

In the past, I have gone hard on the current for not doing the journalistic digging they should as the alternative to the incredibly lazy, articles written like a press release, Express-News. This new article was great.

It was factual. It provided the receipts. It shows that this city isn't experiencing the kind of airport growth that makes legacy or flagship carriers want to take a chance on SAT.

I have a feeling that they'll also be investigating how they intend of fully funding this $1.5b airport expansion when they don't have even close to half of it raised.

Holding the city accountable for what they say is what that paper should be doing. I hope to see more of it.

[rynetwo]

The real increase came from the ultra-low-cost carriers. You know, the ones where you pay extra for everything beyond a basic seat. Frontier managed a 65% increase in San Antonio passengers, and Spirit Airlines boomed, capturing 5.1% of the domestic passenger market here in 2023.

Why are these stats referenced in the same sentence? They are looking at two different metrics.

Low cost carriers with $39 fares can do well in serving our leisure market. A Spirit — and perhaps Condor as well — can manage here with the aid of subsidies and revenue guarantees. But we lack the kind of economy and firms that generate a large, consistent volume of business travel — the kind of travel that's most profitable for the major air carriers.

Unless Austin became a poor city this is just poor research. SAT and AUS airlines have almost an identical market share for the top 5. Seems like it may not be as easy to just calling everyone poor.

SAT
Southwest 37%
American 21%
Delta 15%
United 15%
Spirit 4%

AUS
Southwest 40%
American 19%
Delta 13%
United 11%
Envoy 5%

San Antonio desperately needs better, higher-paying jobs in something other than hotels and hospitality. We need corporate headquarters that choose to come here and actually stay and grow.

It’s worth noting that the hospitality industry doesn’t currently rank among the top five largest industries. While progress is being made, it’s essential to accelerate the pace significantly to offset the losses resulting from acquisitions. AI will be very interesting to see how it shapes our cities and which industries thrive.

The growth of San Antonio International Airport (SAT) in 2023 places it among the top-performing medium-sized airports in the United States.

As a semi frequent traveler, both for leisure and business, I find that the airport efficiently serves its purpose. I am hopefully optimistic about the upcoming changes and hope that the city manages them effectively. It would be great to see more positive news reports in the future.

[RadiantBaby]

Originally Posted by rynetwo

It would be great to see more positive news reports in the future.

No, it would be great to continue to see The Current not write pollyanna stories that read as fluff, pep-rally pieces like the E-N.

That's why an alternative weekly exists.

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by ged_782

I recall a study was done to determine if San Antonio could justify a completely new airport to replace the current one, and the answer was something like "No, the current location can be upgraded to serve the metro's needs for the next 50 years". So the result was the new 17-gate terminal that was announced, plus a runway extension out to 10,000' to facilitate more direct flights to overseas destinations.

Airport projects often get partial funding from the FAA, but they have to justify need to get that funding. If San Antonio wasted to go it alone, so to speak, and build an entirely new airport, it would be a massive project that would likely have to be funded entirely by locals. Timeline from land acquisition to opening date would probably be 10 years, best case scenario, and would need to keep sinking money into the current facility to keep it maintained and upgraded, in the meantime.

As for a joint regional airport between Austin and San Antonio, Austin's conversion of the former Bergstrom AFB pretty much eliminated any benefit to Austin to participate in such a project.

Exactly right. A joint regional airport would not make much sense anytime soon. Austin and SA are definitely growing towards one another, but the downtowns are 80 miles apart and both airports can expand (and are). Maybe 30 years from now, with a high-speed rail link between the two, we could talk about a joint airport.

Is the runway extension at SAT in progress now and actually happening? They've been talking about this for a long time and its honestly just as needed as the terminal upgrade, if not moreso - the runway length is somewhat limiting for long flights, especially in the summer.

[rynetwo]

Originally Posted by RadiantBaby

No, it would be great to continue to see The Current not write pollyanna stories that read as fluff, pep-rally pieces like the E-N.

That's why an alternative weekly exists.

This was an opinion piece, which, in my view, could benefit from a more analytical approach rather than employing name calling. Specifically, focusing on one of the aspects related to the perceived airport issues.

From the article:

Editor's Note: Cityscrapes is a column of opinion and analysis.

[WVNomad]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch

Exactly right. A joint regional airport would not make much sense anytime soon. Austin and SA are definitely growing towards one another, but the downtowns are 80 miles apart and both airports can expand (and are). Maybe 30 years from now, with a high-speed rail link between the two, we could talk about a joint airport.

It doesn’t seem all that unusual to me to live in a place where one has to drive 45 minutes to an airport. Putting something smack dab in the middle of Austin and San Antonio strikes me as a sensible way to facilitate air travel for two decent sized cities and only having to build/maintain one airport. Obviously, this is a gross over simplification as I’m sure there are dozens of other factors involved….securing land, environmental issues, dealing with local politics, etc. But in general, I don’t see the distance as an issue event absent high speed rail.