[ltsmotorsport]

Airport's big plans ready to soar
Sacramento International's largest expansion ever on track to start this summer
By Tony Bizjak - tbizjak@sacbee.com
Published 12:00 am PST Thursday, January 17, 2008
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B1


After years of preparation, Sacramento International Airport officials find themselves on the verge of what they call a historic event – their biggest airport expansion ever.

The $1.3 billion plan includes a four-story central terminal, satellite concourse, people mover, hotel tower and multistory garage.

Despite recent federal concerns about construction in the flood-prone area, officials say they are on track to start in summer.

Airports director Hardy Acree spoke Wednesday with The Bee:

Q: First, this flood issue sounds tricky. How do you avoid the potential construction moratorium Natomas is facing?

A: We're on schedule for (approval) in May to award the construction contracts. If that occurs before the Federal Emergency Management Agency does the flood remapping, we are good to go. We intend to get under construction sometime in early July.

Q: What if there is a flood someday?

A: Our Achilles' heel is the runways. As soon as an inch of water gets on the runways, we are closed down. We don't have planes with pontoons. We're conducting a 'continuity of operations' plan right now: In the unlikely event of a catastrophic levee breach, where might we reconstitute operations on a limited basis? (We're) looking at both Mather and McClellan (fields).

Q: Why expand the airport now?

A: The question could be, 'Why didn't you do it sooner?' We have facilities that have outlived their useful life. They are obsolete and grossly undersized. Air transportation is expected to grow significantly over the next 20 years.

Q: You'll be knocking Terminal B down. Besides being drab, what are its inadequacies?

A: It opened in 1967. The security checkpoints, baggage claim and (passenger) hold areas are undersized. Airports have become business enterprises (relying on retail shops, parking revenues). At B, we see so many lost revenue-generating opportunities.

Q: The new central terminal is four stories tall with escalators. Why go so vertical?

A: We don't have a lot of land available for a terminal. That was one of the issues: Why don't we just build another (terminal) A? But A is a 'unit' terminal, self-contained with its own baggage claim. We don't have adequate real estate to plop down unit terminals (during future expansions).

Q: So the new terminal's boarding gates will be on a satellite concourse out in the airfield, connected by an elevated people mover. Why not an underground walkway, like at O'Hare in Chicago?

A: We looked at that. We couldn't. The water table is (high), so it's more cost-effective to go above ground. I don't know of anybody who doesn't love an airport people mover.

Q: The planned double-decker road at the new terminal looks like the big, crowded airports. Aren't you going to lose some of your 'easy in, easy out' flow?

A: No. In fact, it will complement the 'easy come, easy go' philosophy. Now, as the A roadway becomes congested, people can't get into the curb. A two-level roadway more than doubles our capacity.

Q: The architecture gives a sense of Sacramento, right?

A: Yes. Rivers identify us. The Delta breeze, the tree canopies, the mountains, the valley, the railroads. All are things we tried to capture in the architecture.

Q: You're tossing in some old-growth redwood?

A: We're reusing some of the history of Sacramento County! It's an old (1921) wooden trestle bridge (the county) demolished. We'll use it in the ceiling and add some warmth to the facility because it is predominantly glass and steel with hard terrazzo floors.

Q: You're putting a 186-room hotel tower with restaurant right on top of the terminal. Why there?

A: It offers a higher level of customer service. They can literally get out of their room, go to the restaurant, check out and go right to their plane.

Q: How did you design for security in the post-9/11 era?

A: We think we have adequate space. You design for maximum flexibility for what might be.

Q: Regional Transit is a long way from being able to extend light rail to the airport, but we see you've left a corridor for it?

A: We recognize at some point Regional Transit is going to extend light rail to the airport. We support that. I see it as a marketing tool, an alternative for the public along the Interstate 80 corridor. They can take the Capitol Corridor train to Sacramento, connect on light rail to the airport. They don't have to drive in to San Francisco.

Q: There's another concern for drivers; Interstate 5 is supposed to get congested soon.

A: I-5 is a constraint right now. There are times we hear of a crash, we call the airlines and say you are going to have late customers because I-5 is closed or constrained.

Q: How much inconvenience will people face during construction?

A: There may be road closures and limiting lanes from time to time. There is going to be pile-driving. But it shouldn't result in us saying, 'Add an hour to your time at the airport to get through the maze of construction.' One of the advantages (of the terminal location) is it allows us to build the central terminal, the … concourse and the (people mover) while we continue to operate out of A and B. We may lose a couple of gates at points.

*as if you haven't seen these already*

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/01/16/21/935-4M17AIRPORT.xlgraphic.prod_affiliate.4.gif

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/01/16/20/843-4M17TERMINAL.embedded.prod_affiliate.4.JPG

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/01/16/20/764-4M17INSIDE.embedded.prod_affiliate.4.JPG
An artist's rendering of the four-story central terminal, as seen from the third floor.
The terminal's boarding gates will be on a satellite concourse in the airfield,
connected by an elevated people mover.

[Majin]

Great news, can't wait for this to start.

[BrianSac]

I really hope things move smoothly and quickly. Can't wait until its done! :banana:

[urban_encounter]

Q: The new central terminal is four stories tall with escalators. Why go so vertical?

Only in Sacramento would this question be asked..

Since when is four stories going "veritcal"...???

[BrianSac]

Only in Sacramento would this question be asked..

Since when is four stories going "veritcal"...???

I totally agree! Some of the people in this town are a special breed. Sadly, some of the most influential people in this town are the most ignorant and provincial. Unfortunately, the not so influential follow suit or are indifferent.

[econgrad]

I totally agree! Some of the people in this town are a special breed. Sadly, some of the most influential people in this town are the most ignorant and provincial. Unfortunately, the not so influential follow suit or are indifferent.

Very true, but I think more and more people are moving here and will make some changes. I meet new people who move here quite often from larger cities. I hope that is not just wishful thinking that more and more people are waking up to Sacramento being a notable city someday.

[SoCal]

Q: Regional Transit is a long way from being able to extend light rail to the airport, but we see you've left a corridor for it?

A: We recognize at some point Regional Transit is going to extend light rail to the airport. We support that. I see it as a marketing tool, an alternative for the public along the Interstate 80 corridor. They can take the Capitol Corridor train to Sacramento, connect on light rail to the airport. They don't have to drive in to San Francisco.

Q: There's another concern for drivers; Interstate 5 is supposed to get congested soon.

A: I-5 is a constraint right now. There are times we hear of a crash, we call the airlines and say you are going to have late customers because I-5 is closed or constrained.

Q: How much inconvenience will people face during construction?

A: There may be road closures and limiting lanes from time to time. There is going to be pile-driving. But it shouldn't result in us saying, 'Add an hour to your time at the airport to get through the maze of construction.' One of the advantages (of the terminal location) is it allows us to build the central terminal, the … concourse and the (people mover) while we continue to operate out of A and B. We may lose a couple of gates at points.

these are my main concerns here. im at the airport everyday.
traffic going to the airport sucks especially on a friday. where I5 and 99 split is always terrible. i wait for the day there is going to be a bad accident from people merging in and out of lanes.

Does anybody know when construction will start im always neart Terminal B

[innov8]

Does anybody know when construction will start im always neart Terminal B

Airport's big plans ready to soar
Sacramento International's largest expansion ever on track to start this summer
By Tony Bizjak - tbizjak@sacbee.com
Published 12:00 am PST Thursday, January 17, 2008
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B1


After years of preparation, Sacramento International Airport officials find themselves on the verge of what they call a historic event – their biggest airport expansion ever.[/SIZE]

This should answer your question... it's the first post on this page.

[SoCal]

lol

[travis bickle]

Hello everyone...

Came across these load factors for ExpressJet at SMF.

75.6% SMF-TUS

73.7% SMF-ABQ

72.7% SMF-OKC

59.5% SMF-SAT

56.2% SMF-COS

53.7% SMF-BFL

51.4% SMF-TUL

37.0% SMF-GEG

These figures are as of October 2007.

I'm surprised that the flights to Spokane are doing so poorly. Competition from Horizon is taking its toll on that route. SMF-BFL doesn't look too good either... but that flight was only operating for a month when these results were recorded. Usually takes longer than that for a flight to get established. It'll be hard to let some of these routes find their market with oil at/near $100.bbl. I doubt oil prices that high were part of the XJT business plan.

Those prices will also make any new airline service for Sacramento harder to implement. Makes a long, thin market like SMF-BOS less likely.

The best thing about them for ExpressJet is that all of them from Sacramento show growth from previous reporting period. But with oil so high, I don't know if they'll have the time.

The old rule of thumb was 70% LF for profitability. Most airlines today want to see at least 85%. The 50-seat jets that XJT flies require higher loads for profitability. This is exacerbated by high fuel costs. XJT undoubtedly planned for losses while they tweaked their schedule, but $100/bbl. is very painful for a start-up airline. The west is performing better than the east throughout their system so I'd expect to see more focus on expansion in the west.

I think the concept - connect undeserved mid-size cities with non-stop flights - was good. The timing is tough.

Were I a betting man (and I am), look for Shallit to do a piece on ExpressJet in the near future.

[neuhickman79]

USAA uses ExpressJet when they have to send people (all the time) from SAT (HQ) to SMF (Western Regional Office) or vice versa and the corporate jets are not available. I don't know who they used before. But, everyone I've heard that has used it thinks it's a great thing!! I'd say it's used probably once or twice a month by USAA for single passenger flights and maybe once a month or so for multi-passenger flights.

[BrianSac]

:previous:
I have a Express Jet flight attendant friend who says their business is booming for them in Sacramento. His says Sacramento is their 1# best performing market. :)

[travis bickle]

:previous:
I have a Express Jet flight attendant friend who says their business is booming for them in Sacramento. His says Sacramento is their 1# best performing market. :)


That makes sense to me. Sacramento fits their profile perfectly. I hope they can ride out this oil spike.

I have heard something intriguing... ExpressJet considering making SMF a focus city with flights from smaller cities throughout the west connecting with JetBlue flights to the east. Not a merger mind you, but something akin to a code-share for selected flights. Brian, see if your FA friend has heard anything along those lines. I'm very skeptical, but it makes the BFL, SBA, FAT flights more understandable.

Everyone I know who has flown them says the experience is great. I should be flying them SAN-SBA within the next few months.

[jsf8278]

That makes sense to me. Sacramento fits their profile perfectly. I hope they can ride out this oil spike.

I wouldn't worry too much about the oil spike causing them problems. Oil has come down substantially since it hit 100...which it only did b/c one investor wanted to able to say he was the first to pay $100 a barrel. With the pending economic slowdown it will probably continue to decrease in price as demand slows. Although, an economic slowdown might do more harm than good for them.

[Pistola916]

SMF was state's fifth busiest airport; edges out SJ

Courtesy of Sac Biz Journal

Sacramento International Airport was the fifth busiest airport in California in 2007, county officials said Friday, rising up one place from the year before and edging past San Jose International.

Last year the airport saw a 30 percent increase in international travelers and a 4 percent increase in domestic passengers, for a total of 10,748,982 passengers.

The increase in international flights was due to the debut of Air Canada, which began nonstop service to and from Vancouver. The airport's other international flights are to various destinations in Mexico.

"Obtaining a route to Vancouver was the No. 1 air service priority of the Sacramento County Airport System for several years," said G. Hardy Acree, director of airports.

[urban_encounter]

SMF was state's fifth busiest airport; edges out SJ

Courtesy of Sac Biz Journal

Sacramento International Airport was the fifth busiest airport in California in 2007, county officials said Friday, rising up one place from the year before and edging past San Jose International.



The Business Journal is a little late.

I first posted SMF overtaking SJC months ago, back in July when I started this thread..

But anyway thanks for the article Pistola. Nice to see SMF continue to grow..

[Pistola916]

I still think eventually SMF will be the state's fourth busiest airport surpassing OAK-perhaps in then next 5-7 years. But that's the highest spot it will ever be.

[travis bickle]

The Business Journal is a little late.

I first posted SMF overtaking SJC months ago, back in July when I started this thread..

But anyway thanks for the article Pistola. Nice to see SMF continue to grow..

Ya know UE - that's really pretty big news. I'm surprised it hasn't gotten more pub. When I was at the airport (gee... just 21 years ago...), Catching SJC was kind of like the holy grail for us. Nice to see it come true. We'll see how long we maintain it. Acree's team is really going to have to hustle.

[neuhickman79]

It is a big accomplishment that SMF passed SJC. YAY US!

[urban_encounter]

I still think eventually SMF will be the state's fourth busiest airport surpassing OAK-perhaps in then next 5-7 years. But that's the highest spot it will ever be.

I think SMF will eventually surpass Oakland, but i think it wont happen for another 10 to 15 years.. But that's just a guess and admittedly i don't know.

Travis would probably have a better insight on that than i would.

[ltsmotorsport]

So would the next Canadian flights be more western cities like Calgary and Edmonton, or would SMF think of going big and getting Toronto?

[cozmoose]

So would the next Canadian flights be more western cities like Calgary and Edmonton, or would SMF think of going big and getting Toronto?

I would be worried about keeping the current Vancouver service. Its down to one round trip per day and the passenger load isn't that great.

[urban_encounter]

Airport officials cut back hotel plan
By Tony Bizjak - tbizjak@sacbee.com
Last Updated 6:02 am PST Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A1



With the calendar speeding toward groundbreaking, Sacramento International Airport officials have reluctantly sliced off part of a major upcoming expansion – a last-minute effort to keep the project from faltering.

The west flank of a planned high-rise airport hotel now will be three stories shorter. Otherwise, it would have blocked air traffic tower controllers' view of a portion of the west runway.

A Federal Aviation Administration spokesman said Monday his agency is waiting to see the airport's amended plan, but is pleased local officials are redesigning the hotel to meet safety concerns.

"We explained the importance of not blocking any airfield views," FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said.

Sacramento airport officials, however, say they are upset with the way the issue played out.

The episode also added to time pressures on airport officials: Should the project fall too far behind schedule, it could be stalled indefinitely by the looming possibility of a flood-related construction moratorium in Natomas.

Local officials spent nearly four years trying to persuade the FAA to move its tower to make room for the airport's planned new terminal and hotel tower, a review of airport e-mails, memos and letters indicates.

At one point, local officials unsuccessfully offered to pay the $25 million price tag to build a tower in a new location on airport grounds if the FAA would reimburse them.

"It only confirms the inflexibility of the federal government," Sacramento airports director Hardy Acree said.

The tower problem is among several loose ends airport officials are racing to tie up in hopes of making their planned midsummer construction start date.

It has become a nail-biter. FAA officials, in an e-mail to the Bee on Monday, countered that they receive numerous tower replacement requests nationally, but have limited funds for the work.

"If we move one facility up on the replacement list, or add a facility to that list, then we have to move another facility down the list or remove it," spokesman Gregor said.

The airport's expansion will be the largest in its 41-year history. Officials say they hope to turn Sacramento's increasingly crowded airfield into a facility that can compete better with San Francisco and Oakland for Northern California business.

The first step is a new four-story, glass-and-steel central terminal to replace outdated Terminal B.

For the moment, another hotel issue stands in the way. County officials are negotiating to buy the existing Host Marriott hotel at the airport to knock it down to make room.

Airport officials said they are within days of an agreement. Hotel company officials said only that negotiations were continuing. County officials said they are prepared to use eminent domain if negotiations fail.

The new terminal is scheduled to open in 2011. Airport executives then intend to knock down Terminal B and build a multistory garage.

Those officials say they are especially excited about plans for the full-service hotel with panoramic views to be built on top of the new terminal. It would allow travelers to check into hotel rooms just an escalator ride up from airline ticket counters.

But it's been a case of an irresistible force hitting an immovable object.

The federal air traffic control tower, built in 1967, sits in the center of the airport, not far from the planned new terminal.

FAA spokesman Gregor said in an e-mail Monday that Sacramento is not on the FAA's current tower replacement list.

Sacramento airport officials, however, said they have been told informally by the FAA it expects to start the process in 2012 that would lead to building a tower.

Failing to persuade the FAA it should move that date up, Sacramento officials last year appealed to a higher authority: They got several local congressional representatives to write to the secretary of transportation.

In a response letter last March, Transportation Secretary Mary Peters backed the FAA's assertion that Sacramento should pay for any tower move because the airport expansion was causing the potential line-of-sight problem.

With their construction deadline bearing down, airport officials recently knocked the hotel's west side down from 10 to seven stories, cutting hotel rooms from about 200 to 185.

Airport director Acree declined Monday to estimate how much extra expense his agency has incurred trying to get the control tower moved.

"If I tried to (add up the costs), my anxieties would just go up," Acree said.

Acree said he remains "cautiously optimistic" the airport will meet its midsummer construction date.

Air traffic controllers in Sacramento say they have mixed feelings about what's coming. They are pleased that, as they guide planes to landing, they won't suddenly get an eyeful of hotel instead. But several said they don't look forward to pile drivers banging a few feet away, and wouldn't mind someday having a new, modern tower in a more secure site on airport grounds.

As for airport architects, they say shortening the west side of the hotel is not all bad.

"It may create a more interesting-looking building than a square block at the end of the terminal," said Brent Kelley of Corgan Associates.

[urban_encounter]

I have a funny feeling some nutcase (like Willam Kopper) will file a last minute lawsuit to stop the county from going forward this summer...

Mark my word..

[travis bickle]

I would be worried about keeping the current Vancouver service. Its down to one round trip per day and the passenger load isn't that great.

This service was always planned to go to 1x/day in the winter. It will return to 2x/day in late spring. Check the Air Canada site for flights in June and you will see two flights again.

My understanding is that the single flight is running loads in the 60s. That, indeed, is not that great, but it's not a disaster. Air Canada has to better promote easy connections to Asia via Vancouver for this service to get better loads. I'm told that most of the pax for this flight are generated by international business people coming to Sacramento, not vice-versa. If that's true, that means that these relatively low loads are more than made up for by high-yields. That usually bodes well for the service to continue.

So would the next Canadian flights be more western cities like Calgary and Edmonton, or would SMF think of going big and getting Toronto?

My best guess for additional A/C service is a morning flight to Toronto, but that's at least 18 mos. out.

Regarding the scaled-down hotel issue: I know the airport people are livid with the FAA over this. They've been trying to work it out for years and have offered all kinds of, in their view (and I agree), reasonable solutions, but The Feds won't budge. This has truly caused some bad blood that is not likely to heal any time soon.

The only disconcerting thing about the airport's growth in 2007 is that it seems to be strictly from new flight with existing service totals to many cities actually down last year. Some of that may be due to additional service direct to new cities instead of having to connect via hubs.

No one that I know at SMF has really considered passing Oakland yet. I've never heard it really mentioned. I know they're ecstatic about passing SJC. I would expect these two airports to run neck-and-neck for the next few years anyway.

And, as UE fears, I'm sure some dork will sue at the last minute to block the project. It's the Sacramento way.

[plinko]

Anybody have an airport map showing the location of the existing tower? I honestly can't remember (it's been awhile since I flew into SMF)...I just recall it's like an orange/red color and looks horribly outdated.

[Majin]

I haven't been following whats been going on with SMF but why doesn't the FAA want to build a new tower if Sacramento is willing to pay for it now with with FAA reimbursing them later if they plan on starting the process to build a new one anyway in 2012?

[travis bickle]

Due to a glitch in calculating facilities (aka, my friends & my brain), I have updated the Expressjet LF totals reported earlier for October 2007.

Here are flight segment; frequency; load factor; total pax.

SMF-ABQ – 2x/day - 54% - 1671

SMF-BFL – 1x/day - 45% - 697

SMF-COS – 2x/day - 55% - 1703

SMF-GEG – 3x/day - 33% - 1536

SMF-OKC – 1x/day - 87% - 1356

SMF-SAT – 2x/day - 61% - 1853

SMF-TUL – 1x/day - 72% - 1123

SMF-TUS – 2x/day - 65% - 2028

SMF-SAT may actually be higher (about 72%), but some of the flights were diverted to Austin and can't be counted. I would look for a story on this with similar figures from Shallit in the near future...

[Phillip]

The west flank of a planned high-rise airport hotel now will be three stories shorter. Otherwise, it would have blocked air traffic tower controllers' view of a portion of the west runway.

How many floors will remain then?

It looks like Sac might be heading towards a hotel glut near the airport. Three new hotels have opened at the I-5/Del Paso intersection already (Four Points, Holiday Inn Express, Hampton Inn) and two others well under construction. 600 or so new rooms just at that one exit.

Ideally there would be a hotel right at the airport. Too bad that didn't happen before all these others went up.

[innov8]

How many floors will remain then?

It looks like Sac might be heading towards a hotel glut near the airport. Three new hotels have opened at the I-5/Del Paso intersection already (Four Points, Holiday Inn Express, Hampton Inn) and two others well under construction. 600 or so new rooms just at that one exit.

Ideally there would be a hotel right at the airport. Too bad that didn't happen before all these others went up.


The new hotel would have seven floors instead of ten like proposed. Also,
there is a hotel at the airport that sits right across the street from Terminal B
but it only has 89 rooms, so it looks like they are trying to boost that number
to meet demand.

[urban_encounter]

The new hotel would have seven floors instead of ten like proposed. Also,
there is a hotel at the airport that sits right across the street from Terminal B
but it only has 89 rooms, so it looks like they are trying to boost that number
to meet demand.

Actually part of the hotel will remain at ten stories. Just the western most side of the tower will be reduced, so that the hotel will be 7 stories on the western most side and 10 stories on the east side.


The west flank of a planned high-rise airport hotel now will be three stories shorter. Otherwise, it would have blocked air traffic tower controllers' view of a portion of the west runway.


As for airport architects, they say shortening the west side of the hotel is not all bad.

"It may create a more interesting-looking building than a square block at the end of the terminal," said Brent Kelley of Corgan Associates.

[urban_encounter]

Anybody have an airport map showing the location of the existing tower? I honestly can't remember (it's been awhile since I flew into SMF)...I just recall it's like an orange/red color and looks horribly outdated.



http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b147/urban_encounter/Sacramento%20Waterfront%201/SMF-LOCATOR-PLAN20UPDATE-Web.gif

It's where the red circle is..

[plinko]

^Thanks. For some reason I thought it was on the other side of the East-West taxiway between the runways. I think I confused it with Tulsa (similar airport layout)

[Phillip]

The new hotel would have seven floors instead of ten like proposed. Also, here is a hotel at the airport that sits right across the street from Terminal B but it only has 89 rooms, so it looks like they are trying to boost that number to meet demand.

I'm surprised that 1960's-looking two story motel outside Terminal B is staying. I'm not saying it's a bad place. I've never stayed there. It just looks out of place to me, from another era, next to the big and busy place SMF has become. A more upscale brand at the airport will have a locational advantage over the pack on Del Paso. I'd love to see an Embassy Suites at the airport.

[innov8]

I'm surprised that 1960's-looking two story motel outside Terminal B is staying.

I don't think it has been mentioned anywhere that the old Host Motel was
staying, just that more rooms will now be added with the expansion. See the
new hotel in the back ground below.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b147/urban_encounter/11_SAC_Cam18_Comp_0163-1.jpg

[Phillip]

Yes, the new concourse and hotel look good. And a quality hotel of any size will be a great asset to the airport.

I just looked at the "proposed configuration" diagram in Urban Encounter's first post to this thread, and I admit I could be reading the diagram wrong, but it looks like the Airport Host would have to be torn down to build what's proposed.

This is kind of interesting. A slideshow of the rooms at the Airport Host Hotel, from the hotel's website:


http://www.hostairporthotel.com/guest.html

[snfenoc]

I just looked at the "proposed configuration" diagram in Urban Encounter's first post to this thread, and I admit I could be reading the diagram wrong, but it looks like the Airport Host would have to be torn down to build what's proposed.

Do people read anymore??

From the article posted on THIS PAGE:

For the moment, another hotel issue stands in the way. County officials are negotiating to buy the existing Host Marriott hotel at the airport to knock it down to make room.

Airport officials said they are within days of an agreement. Hotel company officials said only that negotiations were continuing. County officials said they are prepared to use eminent domain if negotiations fail.

[Phillip]

I admit I don't read every word of every article that gets posted here, snfenoc.

Good luck to the airport and the hotel in their negotiations.

[jsf8278]

Do people read anymore??

Geez...snfenoc, calm down. Not everyone has time to read every post. Was a post about people not reading every post really necessary?

[snfenoc]

I don't believe I asked for your opinion, jsf8278. But thanks for volunteering it.

Look, I understand some forumers don't come here often; they are ignorant of many projects, and that is fine. Informing people is what this forum is all about. But spoon feeding information to those who are especially obtuse is really annoying.

Let's say an average-length article is posted with facts like:
1) The west flank of a hotel will be cut from 10 to 7 stories
2) The current hotel is going to be knocked down for space

Then, somebody references the article, but has the gall to ask questions like:
1) How many stories will the west flank of the new hotel be?
2) What is going to happen to the current hotel? Shouldn't it be knocked down?

Here's what I have to say to that person. Read the damn article. The information is right there. Come on, how hard is it to spend 3 or 4 minutes reading an article? It can't be as hard as asking stupid questions on a forum and waiting for someone to point out the obvious.

[neuhickman79]

I don't believe I asked for your opinion, jsf8278. But thanks for volunteering it.

Look, I understand some forumers don't come here often; they are ignorant of many projects, and that is fine. Informing people is what this forum is all about. But spoon feeding information to those who are especially obtuse is really annoying.

Let's say an average-length article is posted with facts like:
1) The west flank of a hotel will be cut from 10 to 7 stories
2) The current hotel is going to be knocked down for space

Then, somebody references the article, but has the gall to ask questions like:
1) How many stories will the west flank of the new hotel be?
2) What is going to happen to the current hotel? Shouldn't it be knocked down?

Here's what I have to say to that person. Read the damn article. The information is right there. Come on, how hard is it to spend 3 or 4 minutes reading an article? It can't be as hard as asking stupid questions on a forum and waiting for someone to point out the obvious.
lazy! I agree with you snfenoc...it's about time! :) :tup:

[goldcntry]

:previous:

I am Uncle Xuldune*, and I approve of this message! :cheers:

:tomato:


*My World of Warcraft persona...

[jsf8278]

I don't believe I asked for your opinion, jsf8278. But thanks for volunteering it.

Look, I understand some forumers don't come here often; they are ignorant of many projects, and that is fine. Informing people is what this forum is all about. But spoon feeding information to those who are especially obtuse is really annoying.

Let's say an average-length article is posted with facts like:
1) The west flank of a hotel will be cut from 10 to 7 stories
2) The current hotel is going to be knocked down for space

Then, somebody references the article, but has the gall to ask questions like:
1) How many stories will the west flank of the new hotel be?
2) What is going to happen to the current hotel? Shouldn't it be knocked down?

Here's what I have to say to that person. Read the damn article. The information is right there. Come on, how hard is it to spend 3 or 4 minutes reading an article? It can't be as hard as asking stupid questions on a forum and waiting for someone to point out the obvious.

I just think its funny that you take this much time to complain about someone not reading something that you think they should have. It as if you feel you somehow own the content of this forum. You sound like a whinny bitch, but hey, you weren't asking for my opinion were you.

[innov8]

I just think its funny that you take this much time to complain about someone not reading something that you think they should have. It as if you feel you somehow own the content of this forum. You sound like a whinny bitch, but hey, you weren't asking for my opinion were you.

This is coming from a guy who was to lazy to read what had already been posted
two posts up and thinking he had the scoop in the Aura thread... please save it.

oh i suppose i should have read the two posts up. I got lazy reading everyone's interpretation of what it meant to move a sign.

[snfenoc]

I just think it's hilarious you spend so much time complaining about my complaint.

Who is the whiny bitch now?

I don't feel I own the content of this forum. In fact, I tend to be very tolerant of the numerous stupid, wasteful posts (the past 6 or 7 being a shining example ;)) we have. However, I find it a little annoying for someone to see an article (we know he saw it, because he referenced a line from it); ignore much of it; then ask questions that could have been answered by spending a few minutes actually reading the article. By the way, this is not an isolated case.

With all of that said, I apologize for being rude; I should have just bit my tongue and answered the question.

[jsf8278]

I just think it's hilarious you spend so much time complaining about my complaint.

Who is the whiny bitch now?

I don't feel I own the content of this forum. In fact, I tend to be very tolerant of the numerous stupid, wasteful posts (the past 6 or 7 being a shining example ;)) we have. However, I find it a little annoying for someone to see an article (we know he saw it, because he referenced a line from it); ignore much of it; then ask questions that could have been answered by spending a few minutes actually reading the article. By the way, this is not an isolated case.

With all of that said, I apologize for being rude; I should have just bit my tongue and answered the question.

Apology accepted...I too apologize for the snide bitch comment. No need for that crap really. :D

Inov:
making a point about this by digging up a previous post of mine that I acknowledged I shouldn't I made is pretty lame. I hope the small sense of self-pride you gain by pointing out other people's mistakes is worth sounding like a jerk.

[innov8]

Inov:
making a point about this by digging up a previous post of mine that I acknowledged I shouldn't I made is pretty lame. I hope the small sense of self-pride you gain by pointing out other people's mistakes is worth sounding like a jerk.

Uh, okay.

Remember, I was not the one who injected name calling into the discussion.

Have a good day jsf8278 :hug:

[BrianSac]

Uh, okay.

Remember, I was not the one who injected name calling into the discussion.

Have a good day jsf8278 :hug:

Now you are getting all gooshy on us. How sweet. ;) Can't we all just get along. Hehehe. I'm gonna crack some heads if y'all jump on my case. :haha:

[Phillip]

With all of that said, I apologize for being rude; I should have just bit my tongue and answered the question.

Thanks for the apology, snfenoc. I can appreciate your frustration at someone asking a question whose answer was just posted. Please put down the gun though. Skimming is not a crime!

I've been working in Orange County the last few months and I got back to Sacramento last week. The carping tone of the Sac board hasn't changed in my absence and I see I'm as popular here as ever.

It's good to be home!

p.s. Your post about the K Street tour last week was razor sharp, as usual, and funny. I read every word of it TWICE. :)

[Phillip]

It's a little awkward to post but cut to chase: it seems best I stop posting on the Sac Skyscraper forum and I will do that after today.

This is off topic in a thread about SMF. But this is where things bubbled up and I thought best to finish here and let the thread get back to SMF, hopefully very soon. If a moderator sees fit please consider deleting the whole last string of comments, including this one, as they're not about SMF.

I like to end things on a positive note when possible. So thanks to everyone for all the lively discussions and all the info and pics. Best wishes to all.

[innov8]

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/254/airportiv0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/254/airportiv0.57c184a54f.jpg (http://g.imageshack.us/g.php?h=526&i=airportiv0.jpg)

It's a little awkward to post but cut to chase: it seems best I stop posting on the Sac Skyscraper forum and I will do that after today.

Taking this a little personal aren’t you? It’s a love/hate relationship around
here and always will be. I know I’m loathed by many on here, so much so
that people have PM and emailed my saying so. We all contribute something,
but it’s often the readers who take it the wrong way.

You should defiantly chime in from time to time… the silent lurking majority love this stuff.

[TowerDistrict]

Taking this a little personal aren’t you? It’s a love/hate relationship around
here and always will be. I know I’m loathed by many on here, so much so
that people have PM and emailed my saying so. We all contribute something,
but it’s often the readers who take it the wrong way.

You should defiantly chime in from time to time… the silent lurking majority love this stuff.

:previous: agreed.

I know I've gotten into it with several forumers before, but i think nothing
further of it, and value everybody's contribution to this place.

[Phillip]

A

[BrianSac]

Best Wishes to you to Buddy. We will be here when you come back. :)

:cheers:

[travis bickle]

It's official: USAir starts non-stop service to BOTH Charlotte and Philadelphia starting June 3.

I'm trying to get more details - but getting this kind of commitment from USAir is a huge step that show great confidence in the Sacramento market. USAir hasn't started a new service (to the West Coast) from Philly or CLT in years.

Great way to start the year.

[travis bickle]

OK... here's the story:

Sacramento - Charlotte:

Flight 378 - Lv. SMF 10:30pm - Ar. CLT 6:10am.

Charlotte - Sacramento

Flight 377 - Lv. CLT 8:20pm - Ar. SMF 10:40pm.

Sacramento - Philadelphia

Flight 376 - Lv. SMF 8:30am - Ar. PHL 4:31pm.

Philadelphia - Sacramento

Flight 375 - Lv. PHL 6:00pm - Ar. SMF 9:00pm.

Both are indeed A-320s. Service to both of USAir's East Coast hubs is fantastic to me. I thought one or the other, but not both!

Great start to the new year for SMF! :cheers:

[urban_encounter]

:previous:


That's great news Travis..



:cheers:

[Pistola916]

Yippy!!! I'm absolutely stunned. I did not see this coming, at least not both Charlotte and Philly. Hopefully, the Sac market can support it. Maybe a Boston flight is around the corner. BTW, these flights are seasonal right??

[BrianSac]

OK... here's the story:

Sacramento - Charlotte:

Flight 378 - Lv. SMF 10:30pm - Ar. CLT 6:10am.

Charlotte - Sacramento

Flight 377 - Lv. CLT 8:20pm - Ar. SMF 10:40pm.

Sacramento - Philadelphia

Flight 376 - Lv. SMF 8:30am - Ar. PHL 4:31pm.

Philadelphia - Sacramento

Flight 375 - Lv. PHL 6:00pm - Ar. SMF 9:00pm.

Both are indeed A-320s. Service to both of USAir's East Coast hubs is fantastic to me. I thought one or the other, but not both!

Great start to the new year for SMF! :cheers:

:previous:

Awesome!!

We so badly need more non-stop transcontinental flights. This opens up more opportunities to Europe and the Carribean as well.

We are planning a trip to Paris and Rome in May, and US Airways has non-stops to both so this is way cool. I hate driving to SFO or connecting through LAX to fly to Europe.

Will we ever get a non-stop to Europe? Any guesses on which European airport will be our first?: Heathrow, Schiphol, CDG, or Frankfurt am Main?

Our only non-stops to the east coast (transcontinental flights) are
a red eye and a regular daytime flight to JFK, an extremely early flight to Atlanta, and a regular morning flight to Dulles(Washington DC). So I'm really excited about this. :)

[urban_encounter]

Will we ever get a non-stop to Europe? Any guesses on which European airport will be our first?: Heathrow, Schiphol, CDG, or Frankfurt am Main?


I'm guessing (and this is only a wild guess mind you.)

2015 at the absolute earliest...


SFO is still Northern California's premiere international airport and will be until that airport get's more boxed in and the transatlantic carriers think that there is enough demand coming from the Valley to justify moving a flight to SMF from SFO or establishing a new flight outright.

SFO attracts a lot of international visitors who fly to San Francisco as tourists, as well as bay area residents flying to international destinations. SMF would have to rely on people in and around the Sacramento/Stockton area (perhaps as far as Vallejo to the West) who want to fly out of SMF and return, in order to support international traffic.

I just don't think it's likely anytime soon because i think Sacramento (like Oakland and SJC) will continue evolving as strong domestic airport, while SFO continues to be the true international airport.

Travis any thoughts??

[travis bickle]

Please remember, there are few industries as rampant with baseless rumors (often nothing more than wishful thinking) as is the airline industry - particularly when it comes to new service.

The airport master plan forecasts 5x/week flights to London in 2015. This master plan actually understated future SMF totals e.g. - it didn't forecast any service to Hawaii - which is now a daily 767 (Honolulu - over 225 pax/day) and a daily 737 (Maui - over 120 pax/day).

I understand that SMF actually has enough traffic right now to support service to London (officially something like 150/day). The difficulties include facilities - Interim International Arrivals building (old commuter terminal) completely inadequate for the larger aircraft (think 767) required for European service and runways only 8600 ft - which is too short (especially in Summer)for a filled and fully fueled 767 to make it to Europe. Another is the traffic distribution - obviously these 150 pax/day are spread out over several airlines and getting them to leave their FF programs, even for non-stop service, is not easy and the new non-stop service will not capture all of them. And of course, having SFO just a hundred or so miles down the road doesn't help attracting international service to SMF; nor does $100/bbl oil prices.

Having said all that, I am told the following:

New terminal will have two international gates capable of accommodating large, long-range aircraft.

Boeing 787 - set to enter service by 2009, can use existing SMF runways without weight restrictions and has necessary range. It will probably be configured to carry around 225-250 pax.

SMF officials have already entered into informal "discussions" (not quite "negotiations" yet) with British Airways to serve Sacramento with non-stop service to London Heathrow. It was described to me as, "Well, they take our phone calls now..." They have also spoken with executives from Lufthansa for service to Frankfort. They have, so far, had better receptions from those airlines than they have any American-based airlines.

Airport officials are targeting service to start between 2012 and 2015. They are actively working to secure this service. They expect to start speaking with the new European LCC airline "Zoom" (will soon start service to San Diego) later this year.

The people with whom I have spoken put their money on 2014. That's just six years.

My own guess? I'll go with the airport people... 2014.

[Majin]

What is the problem with widening runways as part of the expansion project? Not enough money?

[BrianSac]

Please remember, there are few industries as rampant with baseless rumors (often nothing more than wishful thinking) as is the airline industry - particularly when it comes to new service.

The airport master plan forecasts 5x/week flights to London in 2015. This master plan actually understated future SMF totals e.g. - it didn't forecast any service to Hawaii - which is now a daily 767 (Honolulu - over 225 pax/day) and a daily 737 (Maui - over 120 pax/day).

I understand that SMF actually has enough traffic right now to support service to London (officially something like 150/day). The difficulties include facilities - Interim International Arrivals building (old commuter terminal) completely inadequate for the larger aircraft (think 767) required for European service and runways only 8600 ft - which is too short (especially in Summer)for a filled and fully fueled 767 to make it to Europe. Another is the traffic distribution - obviously these 150 pax/day are spread out over several airlines and getting them to leave their FF programs, even for non-stop service, is not easy and the new non-stop service will not capture all of them. And of course, having SFO just a hundred or so miles down the road doesn't help attracting international service to SMF; nor does $100/bbl oil prices.

Having said all that, I am told the following:

New terminal will have two international gates capable of accommodating large, long-range aircraft.

Boeing 787 - set to enter service by 2009, can use existing SMF runways without weight restrictions and has necessary range. It will probably be configured to carry around 225-250 pax.

SMF officials have already entered into informal "discussions" (not quite "negotiations" yet) with British Airways to serve Sacramento with non-stop service to London Heathrow. It was described to me as, "Well, they take our phone calls now..." They have also spoken with executives from Lufthansa for service to Frankfort. They have, so far, had better receptions from those airlines than they have any American-based airlines.

Airport officials are targeting service to start between 2012 and 2015. They are actively working to secure this service. They expect to start speaking with the new European LCC airline "Zoom" (will soon start service to San Diego) later this year.

The people with whom I have spoken put their money on 2014. That's just six years.

My own guess? I'll go with the airport people... 2014.

Well, this is very encouraging especialy considering 787's can use the shorter runways.

I am trying to find statistics on how many Sacramentans/Cental Valley people use SFO and where to they go internationally from SFO.

You would think we could handle a non-stop to Tokyo as well. There are plenty of asian folk in Sacramento/Cental Valley . Granted, we do not have a corporate business base that San Jose/Oakland/SF has but a once a week non-stop might work. At one time SJ had an American Airlines non-stop to Tokyo and few other places in Japan or China. Currently, I think both San Jose and Oakland have no non-stops to Europe or Asia.

Interesting to note, many of our international flights originating at SMF rarely connect through SFO or LAX, if they do, they usaully add many hours to flight times.

Regarding our US Airways flights, why Charlotte and not Boston? Is it because Charlotte is a hub?

[travis bickle]

You would think we could handle a non-stop to Tokyo as well. There are plenty of asian folk in Sacramento/Central Valley.

This is, in my view, another problem with the airport's master plan. It discounts any future market to Asia. I am told there are at least 100/pax a day traveling to the major Asian markets. I am further told this represents a fraction of total Valley/Asia travelers as most book straight from SFO.

If the SMF/BA talks are at this point nothing more than hopeful discussions, anything regarding service to Asia is even less formal - and hopeful - than that. I've heard some talk has taken place with Japan Airlines regarding service to Tokyo. These discussions occurred when airline executives were here negotiating use of SMF for training exercisies. There have also been very informal discussions with Cathay Pacific regarding flights to Hong Kong. If we were to classify any talks with BA regarding service to London as a "ten," any discussions about service to Asia would be considered, at best, a "two."

The airport's international priority at present are flights to Europe. Many airport officials feel that SFO is too much of a detriment to SMF-Asia service in the near future. That would, of course, change if the right opportunity presented itself. Having said all that, the few airport people who have discussed service to Asia think that a 2014-2017 time frame is possible and that anything can happen after the new terminal is completed in 2010.

Regarding our US Airways flights, why Charlotte and not Boston? Is it because Charlotte is a hub?

Yes - the Charlotte hub is one of US Air's most efficient and rapidly growing stations. Although Philly is the main US Air European hub, Charlotte will be used to feed both European traffic and the Caribbean.

[Pistola916]

^
Now that you gave us a timeline regarding Europe and Asia. Has there been any talks for additional Latin America service? Monterrey, a direct flight to Mexico City.

[BrianSac]

Now that we have non-stops to Honolulu, Oahu and Kahalui, Maui, we need a non-stop to both the Big Island and one to Kauai. Many Sacramentans that return to Hawaii repeatedly for their vacations prefer the Big Island and Kauai over Honolulu.

Ever since we obtained the Hawaiian Air and Aloha non-stops, I wondered if there would ever be connections from the east through SMF to Hawaii. Well, it looks like Hawaiian recently added flights from Cleveland through SFO, LAS, LAX, and PHX. Its obvious they chose those cities because they are big markets and tourist destinations in their own right. But SMF is a good size 2nd tier city and it could market itself as an alternative to SFO, Oakland, and Reno regarding travel to the Napa Valley and some cases Tahoe. So, if Hawaiian ever routed flights from Cleveland to Hawaii through SMF, that would be a first step into becoming a mini-mini-mini hub.

[urban_encounter]

The people with whom I have spoken put their money on 2014. That's just six years.

My own guess? I'll go with the airport people... 2014.

My guess was off by a year...

Thanks for the insight Travis. I appreciate the inside feedback..

:cheers:

[otnemarcaS]

Interesting to note, many of our international flights originating at SMF rarely connect through SFO or LAX, if they do, they usaully add many hours to flight times.


True. As someone who's travelled internationally every year for the last decade, most flights I've taken from SMF have connected through Atlanta, Chicago and Minneapolis/St Paul airports. In fact, I eliminate any flights connecting thru SFO or LAX unless I absolutely have little choice. Personally, unless there's a significant cost savings, if you live in Sac there's little reason to go thru SFO. A non-stop from SFO is an automatic one stop from Sac whether you drive or fly connect.

[urban_encounter]

I eliminate any flights connecting thru SFO or LAX unless I absolutely have little choice. Personally, unless there's a significant cost savings, if you live in Sac there's little reason to go thru SFO. A non-stop from SFO is an automatic one stop from Sac whether you drive or fly connect.


Well said. Personally I've never used bay area airports while living in Sacramento, with the only exception being a last minute flight from Chicago last summer and only because flights were booked solid into SMF. The only time I've used SFO is when i lived in the bay area..

SMF is finally competitive with those airports in terms of cost.

But i will not book an international flights to or from SFO; nor will i connect through SFO, LAX or Phoenix. When i flew to France last June I flew to O'hare and connected there. I'm not going to back track when flying and the best way to improve service from SMF is to fly to/from there whenever possible in order to demonstrate demand. And lastly who the heck wants to put up with the traffic driving to the bay area and then have to wait a couple more hours before your flight? No thanks.

[BrianSac]

True. As someone who's travelled internationally every year for the last decade, most flights I've taken from SMF have connected through Atlanta, Chicago and Minneapolis/St Paul airports. In fact, I eliminate any flights connecting thru SFO or LAX unless I absolutely have little choice. Personally, unless there's a significant cost savings, if you live in Sac there's little reason to go thru SFO. A non-stop from SFO is an automatic one stop from Sac whether you drive or fly connect.

Yes, I agree. The more the non-stops SMF gets the better. I absolutely hate having to go to SFO although it is a really "cool" airport.

Besides, ATL, ORD (Chicago-O'Hare), and MSP, the other main connecting airports to international destinations not counting Asian destinations from SMF would be DIA(Denver), DFW, JFK, IAD (Dulles-Washington DC), and IAH(Houston).

[travis bickle]

My guess was off by a year...

Thanks for the insight Travis. I appreciate the inside feedback..

:cheers:

And you could still be right. For non-stop service to London - I'll take either year. As someone who grew up with that airport, the idea that we are realistically contemplating non-stop service to London and that we already have non-stop service to Mexico and Canada is astounding.

[enigma99a]

So when the new terminal B is complete will we finally have a proper int'l customs area? (not a customs shed) and since Sac is now an offical federal port city, they will be providing funding for it?

[urban_encounter]

So when the new terminal B is complete will we finally have a proper int'l customs area? (not a customs shed) and since Sac is now an offical federal port city, they will be providing funding for it?



Yes the customs area will be downstairs under the main concourse. Once passengers clear customs their baggage will be put on a conveyor and they will meet up with it in the central terminal baggage claim area, (so they wont have to haul it onto the APM..

(this per the Corgan Assoicate rep i spoke with)

[Jay916]

There's a cool video on youtube about the new terminal
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85Rmpf1_Wj8

[urban_encounter]

There's a cool video on youtube about the new terminal
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85Rmpf1_Wj8

Yeah they had this at the last public workshop.

Thanks for finding this..

Corgan knows how to design airports...

[Ryan@CU]

There's a cool video on youtube about the new terminal
:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85Rmpf1_Wj8


that video is amazing. thanks for sharing

[travis bickle]

I've been hearing all weekend that Aloha Airlines is shutting down all non-cargo operations tomorrow (3.31). The chatter has reached a fever pitch and I'm really starting to worry now. It would really be tragic. My understanding is that the SMF-OGG flight is among their most successful. I hope this is just another vicious rumor, but it's starting to look pretty bad.

[LoneStarMike]

:previous: It's true.

Aloha Airlines halting passenger service

By AUDREY McAVOY

HONOLULU

Aloha Airlines said Sunday it will halt all passenger service after Monday, signaling the end of an airline that has served Hawaii for more than 60 years.

Aloha, which filed for bankruptcy for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on March 21, was a casualty of fierce competition and rising fuel prices. The airline said it will stop taking reservations for flights after Monday.

Link to full story (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8VO1RNO0.htm)

[urban_encounter]

My understanding is that the SMF-OGG flight is among their most successful. I hope this is just another vicious rumor, but it's starting to look pretty bad.


Maybe Hawiian will look at Aloha's demise as an opportunity to expand their Island service to/from SMF or maybe United???

[cozmoose]

This past week, we've had three airlines go out of business.
Aloha, ATA, and Skybus.

Is Expressjet next? and if so, what does that mean for SMF?

[urban_encounter]

This past week, we've had three airlines go out of business.
Aloha, ATA, and Skybus.

Is Expressjet next? and if so, what does that mean for SMF?

Overall traffic is still up at..

Aloha is the only airline lost at SMF and as Travis pointed out that route was successful.

I can't speak for the airlines, but i wouldn't be suprised to see another airline pick up Aloha's route.


Oakland lost Aloha and ATA but like SMF should whether the losses fine.

[Web]

From my one partial experience with SkyBus at Bob Hope Airport(Burbank).....its a miracle they lasted this long.....They shared a ticket check in with a shoeshine stand......(no checked bags allowed i think). I think this where they distributed the box lunch also....not sure. I know the 4 or 5 peopel standing near me were nervous since it was 20 minutes to the flight and npo one was there yet.....and this was before screening.

[cozmoose]

Frontier Airline just filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy. :(

[neuhickman79]

Frontier Airline just filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy. :(
I feel the need to clarify here. Although, I don't know much about bankruptcy, Frontier filed for bankruptcy protection. Isn't there a difference?

edit:
From Wikipedia:
When a troubled business is unable to service its debt or pay its creditors, the business or its creditors can file with a federal bankruptcy court for protection under either chapter 7 or chapter 11. In chapter 7, the business ceases operations and a trustee sells all of its assets and distributes the proceeds to its creditors. This is done in accordance with statutory defined priorities. A chapter 11 filing, on the other hand, is usually an attempt to stay in business while a bankruptcy court supervises the "reorganization" of the company's contractual and debt obligations. The court can grant complete or partial relief from most of the company's debts and its contracts, so that the company can make a fresh start. Often, if the company's debts exceed its assets, then at the completion of bankruptcy the company's owners (stockholders) all end up with nothing; all their rights and interests are terminated and the company's creditors end up with ownership of the newly reorganized company.

[SacTownAndy]

Frontier is hands down my favorite airline out there- nice planes, cheap flights, great service, direct tv, etc. This bankruptcy won't affect flight service according to this email I got below:


Dear EarlyReturns® Member,

As you may know, Frontier Airlines voluntarily filed to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Frontier is committed to delivering exceptional customer service and we intend to continue delivering on that promise with normal operations throughout our reorganization process. Our 6,000 employees look forward to serving you.

Your travel plans are secure - We are operating our existing schedule of flights - today and in the future - honoring tickets and reservations as usual, and making normal refunds and exchanges. You can count on Frontier, along with our codeshare partners, as we connect you through our Denver hub to 66 destinations in the U.S., Canada, Mexico and Costa Rica.

Your EarlyReturns® miles are secure - Our EarlyReturns® program is unaffected, and you can continue to enjoy the program's benefits, including the opportunity to earn and redeem miles on Frontier and AirTran flights. You can also continue to earn miles using the Frontier World MasterCard®, our new Frontier BusinessCard, or through our many other EarlyReturns® partners. All of our other award-winning customer service programs remain in place.

Frontier took this action following an unexpected attempt by our principal credit card processor to substantially increase a "hold-back" of customer receipts, which threatened to severely impact our liquidity. Frontier will now have the time and legal protection necessary to obtain additional financing and enhance our liquidity. We currently have adequate cash on hand to meet our operating needs while we take steps to further strengthen our company. You can learn more about our reorganization by visiting www.frontierairlines.com/restructure.

We are very proud of Frontier's focus on customer service and safety. Our mainline operation has one of the youngest Airbus fleets in North America and offers 24 channels of DIRECTV® service in every seatback along with a comfortable all coach configuration. Our commitment to safety is proven by our maintenance team's receipt of its unprecedented 9th FAA Diamond Award for safety training of 100% of our maintenance employees. We look forward to providing you with great service in the safest environment for years to come.

All of us on the Frontier team of aviation professionals appreciate your loyalty to our airline and the opportunity to serve you. Thank you for choosing Frontier Airlines.

Sincerely,

Sean Menke
President and CEO

[cozmoose]

Frontier is hands down my favorite airline out there- nice planes, cheap flights, great service, direct tv, etc. This bankruptcy won't affect flight service according to this email I got below:

Problem with Frontier is that they have to deal with United above them and Southwest from below in their own hub in Denver.
And their attempt to diversify their routes with secondary hubs or p2p routes to mexico have not succeeded.
I am afraid end of Frontier Airlines is matter of when.

[SacTownAndy]

:previous: Southwest just started flying direct from Denver-San Diego about two weeks ago. I went to San Diego this past weekend and I actually flew Southwest instead of Frontier. The Southwest ticket was $80 cheaper for roughly the same times as what Frontier wanted. I'm loyal to Frontier and have a crapload of miles with them, but when the price discrepancy is that large for basically the same "product", I'll almost always go for the cheaper flight. Southwest has definitely started taking a large chunk of Frontier's business out here since they re-initiated flights to/from DIA about a year ago.

Does anyone know if Southwest has any plans to fly direct from Sacramento-Denver? They started flying direct to DIA from Oakland, San Jose, Seattle, and San Diego all within the last few weeks. I was just curious if they have plans for the SMF-DEN route?

[Web]

yeah Frontier has nice planes ,nice flight attendents, nice tv in headsets

and usually nice flights.

I have flown cross country twice this past year on Southworst....saved like 20 bucks....ended up with baggage being delayed 1 day each way....and you one of the planes was in that "SWA biggest fine for lack of maintenance"...we made it to runway went back to terminal.....waited 3 hrs for new plane to fly us.....(old plane was parked in corner of airport awaiting work)......arrived 6 hrs late due to missed connection and very hungry!

I will spend the extra 20 or so bucks on trying for nonstops or terminal b airlines(minimal lines also)

[travis bickle]

:previous: Southwest just started flying direct from Denver-San Diego about two weeks ago. I went to San Diego this past weekend and I actually flew Southwest instead of Frontier. The Southwest ticket was $80 cheaper for roughly the same times as what Frontier wanted. I'm loyal to Frontier and have a crapload of miles with them, but when the price discrepancy is that large for basically the same "product", I'll almost always go for the cheaper flight. Southwest has definitely started taking a large chunk of Frontier's business out here since they re-initiated flights to/from DIA about a year ago.

Does anyone know if Southwest has any plans to fly direct from Sacramento-Denver? They started flying direct to DIA from Oakland, San Jose, Seattle, and San Diego all within the last few weeks. I was just curious if they have plans for the SMF-DEN route?

I am told the only thing stopping Southwest flying SMF-Denver is gate space at Sacramento. They are trying to resolve that now. Although SWA gates are maxed-out at SMF now, I still think there's a good chance we'll see service before end of year.

[urban_encounter]

:previous:



Southwest needs Terminal A to themselves..


That would allow them extra gate space..


The expansion can't come soon enough.

[cozmoose]

Any idea when the construction will start on the new terminal B?

[pdxman]

:previous: Yes, when does this project begin? I just watched the youtube video and the terminal looks very good. This should be awesome for sacramento :tup:

[Web]

I think it was posted sometime in August when the Hotel gets bulldozed.....

[cozmoose]

http://www.hostairporthotel.com/

PLEASE NOTE: Due the hotel's closure we cannot accept reservations for
dates after July 31, 2008

YAY!!! http://smackforum.net/images/smilies/bunny.gif http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/images/smilies/apple.gif http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/images/smilies/tomato.gif http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/images/smilies/pepper.gif http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/images/smilies/dancing.gif

[urban_encounter]

Entitlements are to issued anytime, if they haven't been already and construction is set to commence (as you noted above) by early Summer.


This will be one of the most important projects in Sacramento's history (in my humble opinion that is)...

[sugit]

Speaking of which....I would imagine now would be the time we start hearing about lawsuits if any are on the way.

Sacramento airport cleared for construction of new terminal
Sacramento Business Journal - by Melanie Turner Staff writer

The Sacramento County Airport System has been issued federal environmental documents that clear the way for construction to start this fall on the proposed $1.3 billion terminal modernization project at Sacramento International Airport.

The project would replace the airport's almost 40-year-old Terminal B to meet the rising demand for passenger services and improve the airport's ability to attract new carriers and routes. The plan would add 680,000 square feet of buildings to the airport, along with parking and a hotel.

The airport has been issued documents -- a Finding of No Significant Impact and a Record of Decision -- that indicate the project would have no significant impact on the existing environment.

"Sacramento County is extremely pleased to learn that another significant action has been taken to clear the way for construction to begin on the modernization of our international airport," Sacramento County Board of Supervisors chairman Jimmie Yee said in a news release. "The extensive and exciting improvements planned for the airport are critical to meeting the needs of our region's growing population and economy."

To date, the airport has sold $586 million in airport revenue bonds to finance the first phase of the terminal project.

"Such early success in the bond market is a critical step in funding this program," said Hardy Acree, Sacramento County Airport System Director of Airports.

[Pistola916]

^
That is wonderful to hear. Hopefully, some wacko doesn't start suing. This will be great for the city especially with the failure to get a new arena, the railyards fiasco, high-rise residential... the list goes on.

[jsf8278]

^
That is wonderful to hear. Hopefully, some wacko doesn't start suing. This will be great for the city especially with the failure to get a new arena, the railyards fiasco, high-rise residential... the list goes on.

This is great for the city. I wonder if the airport's success has anything to do with the fact that, unlike the aforementioned projects, the city doesn't really have anything to do with it?

[ltsmotorsport]

I normally wouldn't rush to the praises of County management, but the Airport staff has done a fine job.

[urban_encounter]

^
That is wonderful to hear. Hopefully, some wacko doesn't start suing.




Like William Kopper?


Nothing would surprise me.