SAN DIEGO | Boom Rundown, Vol. 2

[Boatguy619]

A quick little photoshop I did. I prefer the plateau, like a Vancouver with out the rain. Anything over 700ft at this point would ruin the skyline IMO.

DSC_0145-Edit-Recovered by kevinbeatty, on Flickr

DSC_0139 by kevinbeatty, on Flickr

touching on the airport discussion. I've seen some cities where they built an elevated airport above traffic and waterways, probably the only solution aside from Miramar. But I think by the time the airport is relocated, air travel will have changed to the point runways may no longer be needed or at least shortened (Thinking of the new F22's). A hyperloop from SAN to LAX would benefit the region more imo. San Diego shouldn't compete with LA, rather complement it and tap into LA's international draw. Most people who come to Cali from abroad visit more than just LA.

[Nv_2897]

^Wow what a cool edit and perspective I think that if we had a tall skyscraper or a few they would look good more in the back rather than just up front like where Horton plaza is but i like out skyline just the way it is

[spoonman]

1 taller tower would certainly make the skyline look weird, but if the limit were higher, we would quickly have multiple new taller towers, which would complement what is already in place. We have so many twins that we could easily have multiple 800-900ft+ towers without a 500ft height limit.

On the airport issue...business travelers who visit SD don't want to pass through LA. Just like San Diegan's don't want to pass through LA. In some cases it could make sense for certain international leisure travelers to pass through LA if they are visiting SoCal as a whole. Business travelers, however, want to come and do a meeting, then leave. Conversely, businesses that would consider locating in San Diego want easy access to the rest of the world. Leisure travelers are great, but business travelers should also be the focus.

[Crackertastik]

Originally Posted by spoonman

1 taller tower would certainly make the skyline look weird, but if the limit were higher, we would quickly have multiple new taller towers, which would complement what is already in place. We have so many twins that we could easily have multiple 800-900ft+ towers without a 500ft height limit.

On the airport issue...business travelers who visit SD don't want to pass through LA. Just like San Diegan's don't want to pass through LA. In some cases it could make sense for certain international leisure travelers to pass through LA if they are visiting SoCal as a whole. Business travelers, however, want to come and do a meeting, then leave. Conversely, businesses that would consider locating in San Diego want easy access to the rest of the world. Leisure travelers are great, but business travelers should also be the focus.

I could see a future where SD has two, a larger international airport to serve and SAN. Like DC has with Dulles and DCA.

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by Crackertastik

I could see a future where SD has two, a larger international airport to serve and SAN. Like DC has with Dulles and DCA.

If you ask me the most likely development pattern will be the usage of Brown Field, McClellan-Palomar, Lindbergh and TJ airports in a manner that (inefficiently) replicates a single larger airport. That's more or less how things are progressing already as it is. Brown has the MAP project to transform it into more of a cargo center, TJ is working on adding air cargo to the CBX, McClellan-Palomar's master plan with its runway extension will finally make commercial service viable, and as we all know Lindbergh is building itself up. That's 4 runways in total, which if run efficiently could keep up with capacity demands. But it won't make SD an airline hub, since passengers won't easily be able to transfer between them. SD will more or less stay where it's at, no real improvements but no real losses either.

[spoonman]

Willo', do you have any more information you can share on the latest happenings at Brown Field?

[202_Cyclist]

With this discussion of San Diego's airport, California Pacific Airlines will be starting service to Reno, San Jose, Phoenix, and Las Vegas from Carlsbad this November using Embraer 145 aircraft.

New airline California Pacific ready for West Coast takeoff
https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...go/1196107002/

[Streamliner]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

With this discussion of San Diego's airport, California Pacific Airlines will be starting service to Reno, San Jose, Phoenix, and Las Vegas from Carlsbad this November using Embraer 145 aircraft.

New airline California Pacific ready for West Coast takeoff
https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...go/1196107002/

Wow! I had been following this airline way back when it was first announced. I assumed it was dead after multiple failed starts. I didn't realize it was back.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by Streamliner

Wow! I had been following this airline way back when it was first announced. I assumed it was dead after multiple failed starts. I didn't realize it was back.

I hope this carrier is successful and there are a lot of residents in southern Orange Co. and northern San Diego Co. for this airline to attract. The airline purchased the operating certificate of a small regional carrier based in Georgia that provided Essential Air Service flights from Denver to two communities in South Dakota.

Cranky Flier also provided his analysis of this airline.

California Pacific Will Fly November 1, But For How Long?
https://crankyflier.com/2018/09/10/c...-for-how-long/

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by spoonman

Willo', do you have any more information you can share on the latest happenings at Brown Field?

There's a variety of news articles up about the Metropolitan Airpark (MAP) project so I won't get too into the weeds, but basically the idea is a P3 will develop a series of industrial facilities, distribution centers, and FBOs (think gas stations for aircraft) across 300 some acres over the next 15-20 years.



I've heard the end result described as being fairly similar to Ontario or San Bernardino airports in concept, although a bit more limited in that the ~8000' runway won't allow 747Fs or 777Fs (before you ask, a runway extension has been proposed and studied. The Navy has expressed concerns that lumbering jumbo jets would interfere with operations at Imperial Beach and arrivals coming into North Island, and the FAA is worried that missed approaches would interfere with arrivals into Lindbergh because they'll have to be rerouted in that direction due to terrain concerns. The option remains open however).

Things are progressing slowly atm because the funding is being provided by half a dozen separate companies with sometimes conflicting demands, the city airport div's lack of manpower to devote to the project, and the general environmental/permitting issues with a development of this size. It'll probably happen eventually, but it takes time.

[mello]

I'm surprised no one has brought this up. Its not like the airport is at capacity and everyone is saying "we could have better service if we had a big facility at Miramar". So what is keeping us from having a Beijing/Shanghai, Seoul, Hong Kong, etc. flight now?? Our Europe coverage I guess could be a bit better maybe adding a Paris or Amsterdam but as it stands it is decent I suppose.

Its not like all the gates are always full so what gives? Like ATX guy said we are a major destination and the Airport Authority is always reaching out to these foreign airlines saying "hey remember us, we are San Diego please fly here!!"

Are they not coming here because we don't have 2 parallel runways? When you look at our terminal layout there are lots of gates after the T2 expansion and more coming with T1.

**** Example Note: SeaTac according to the count I just did has 78 gates, SAN has 56 (I'm counting all spots where planes can dock, from twin prop stuff for hopping to LAX or Emirates gates flying to Dubai) SeaTac does 2.5 the passenger load SAN does with only 22 more gates so there is room for us to add more International Flights.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by mello

I'm surprised no one has brought this up. Its not like the airport is at capacity and everyone is saying "we could have better service if we had a big facility at Miramar". So what is keeping us from having a Beijing/Shanghai, Seoul, Hong Kong, etc. flight now?? Our Europe coverage I guess could be a bit better maybe adding a Paris or Amsterdam but as it stands it is decent I suppose.

Its not like all the gates are always full so what gives? Like ATX guy said we are a major destination and the Airport Authority is always reaching out to these foreign airlines saying "hey remember us, we are San Diego please fly here!!"

Are they not coming here because we don't have 2 parallel runways? When you look at our terminal layout there are lots of gates after the T2 expansion and more coming with T1.

US airlines have recently been cutting flights to China. Slots at Chinese airports are difficult for US airlines to obtain and when they can obtain them, they are often at bad times.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1L61JP

Additionally, San Diego is a great city, fantastic weather and scenic, but the metro area only has approximately 3.5M residents and San Diego isn't a hub for any airline, whereas LAX, SFO, and Seattle all have significant connecting traffic.

[spoonman]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

US airlines have recently been cutting flights to China. Slots at Chinese airports are difficult for US airlines to obtain and when they can obtain them, they are often at bad times.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1L61JP

Additionally, San Diego is a great city, fantastic weather and scenic, but the metro area only has approximately 3.5M residents and San Diego isn't a hub for any airline, whereas LAX, SFO, and Seattle all have significant connecting traffic.

Seattle is about the same size as San Diego population wise, but their economy is booming more than SD's and they get more international service as they are geographically closer (more on the way) than San Diego to Asia and Europe. Most people wouldn't know it, but if you go to Great Circle Mapper, you will see that although San Diego appears to be "on the way" to Asia, it is actually out of the way. This is one reason why SFO is such a big hub for Asia. Flights to Asia from SAN and LAX bascially pass San Francisco on the way to Asia.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by spoonman

Seattle is about the same size as San Diego population wise, but their economy is booming more than SD's and they get more international service as they are geographically closer (more on the way) than San Diego to Asia and Europe. Most people wouldn't know it, but if you go to Great Circle Mapper, you will see that although San Diego appears to be "on the way" to Asia, it is actually out of the way. This is one reason why SFO is such a big hub for Asia. Flights to Asia from SAN and LAX bascially pass San Francisco on the way to Asia.

That is part of it but SFO and Seattle are also hubs (United and Delta, respectively), so they have significant amounts of connecting traffic, in addition to the origin & destination traffic.

Also, more of the passengers coming to San Diego are probably leisure travelers, making it difficult for airlines to charge the higher fares for nonstop flights that business travelers would pay.

[spoonman]

Originally Posted by mello

I'm surprised no one has brought this up. Its not like the airport is at capacity and everyone is saying "we could have better service if we had a big facility at Miramar". So what is keeping us from having a Beijing/Shanghai, Seoul, Hong Kong, etc. flight now?? Our Europe coverage I guess could be a bit better maybe adding a Paris or Amsterdam but as it stands it is decent I suppose.

Its not like all the gates are always full so what gives? Like ATX guy said we are a major destination and the Airport Authority is always reaching out to these foreign airlines saying "hey remember us, we are San Diego please fly here!!"

Are they not coming here because we don't have 2 parallel runways? When you look at our terminal layout there are lots of gates after the T2 expansion and more coming with T1.

**** Example Note: SeaTac according to the count I just did has 78 gates, SAN has 56 (I'm counting all spots where planes can dock, from twin prop stuff for hopping to LAX or Emirates gates flying to Dubai) SeaTac does 2.5 the passenger load SAN does with only 22 more gates so there is room for us to add more International Flights.

I'm not the authority on airline operations, but there are other factors besides gates and runways that impact service.

Below are a number of factors...many of which SAN fairs poorly. A relocated airport would solve almost all problems, except feeder traffic, but solving these problems would create the conditions for more feeder traffic. Essentially, a relocated airport could solve virtually every issue.

1. Airport Hours/Curfew (result of location of SAN)
2. Space for overnight aircraft (minimal at SAN)
3. Space for aircraft maintenance (minimal at SAN)
4. Local O&D traffic (not really a problem San Diego is a decent size market)
5. Feeder traffic (feeder traffic supports additional international flights...however not being a hub hurts feeder traffic relative to hub airports)
6. Gates (SAN has a respectable number of gates)
7. Crew bases (SAN is not a hub, so minimal crew bases)
8. Payload capability (certain aircraft like 747/A340, etc are weight restricted out of SAN, meaning they have to carry less people or cargo. This makes routes less profitable and can be the difference between getting or not getting a route)

[HurricaneHugo]

Isn't the main factor the size of our runway?

As in 747s and others can't take off with a full passenger and fuel load?

[Derek]

I think the more modern 747s can takeoff and land safely at SAN. British Airways has flown a few 747s on the LHR-SAN route over the past couple of years.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by HurricaneHugo

Isn't the main factor the size of our runway?

As in 747s and others can't take off with a full passenger and fuel load?

No, domestic carriers and many international carriers aren’t flying 747s now. San Diego’s runway should be sufficiently long for a 787 or an A350.

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by Derek

I think the more modern 747s can takeoff and land safely at SAN. British Airways has flown a few 747s on the LHR-SAN route over the past couple of years.

747-200/400s and 777-300s can only take off with enough fuel to reach Phoenix Sky Harbor when filled with PAX. 747-8s can't take off at all with an economically useful load, although they can land with one (Atlas Air occasionally flies in outsize cargo and leaves empty).

787s are almost perfectly sized for KSAN though, and have really been driving the increase in widebody traffic and international flights.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

747-200/400s and 777-300s can only take off with enough fuel to reach Phoenix Sky Harbor when filled with PAX. 747-8s can't take off at all with an economically useful load, although they can land with one (Atlas Air occasionally flies in outsize cargo and leaves empty).

787s are almost perfectly sized for KSAN though, and have really been driving the increase in widebody traffic and international flights.

Back in the 90s the flight made a stop in PHX but the new flights from the past few years have not. BA has flown both the 747-400 and the 777-300ER nonstop between SAN and LHR.