SAN ANTONIO | City and Metro Transportation Thread - Page 49

Spoiler · #**961** Posted **Nov 23, 2016, 11:23 PM**

There is no benefit to having an airport in the middle of town because it's a waste of land. It would be better if the airport was on the outskirts, connected with good mass transit. The current airport site would be better used as a commercial/residential "downtown" for the Northside. Aren't we trying to plan for one million new people by 2040? Build an urban environment where the airport is now that could house 150,000 people.

Keep-SA-Lame · #**962** Posted **Nov 28, 2016, 2:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by STLtoSA

A couple of things:

There is plenty of opportunity to extend both Runways to around 10,000' (and there is a plan for a parallel runway). If that were the main issue extending the runways would be a lot cheaper than building a new airport.
Building an airport on the far south side would not attract people from Corpus, Victoria, and the Valley much more than the current airport. A move to the far south might trigger people on the North side to choose Austin more times than they would currently.

San Antonio should be exploring the state of future San Antonio air travel. If there is ever a need for a new airport in San Antonio that will be a pretty good indicator that things are going extremely well. However, we are not anywhere close that that yet. The current airport is far from capacity in its current state and there is still a lot of room for growth (~20 gates).

There has been a lot of money put into the airport in recent years and a lot more is planned. There is a plan to meet demands until at least 2050.

So even though there may be talk of a future airport location...we aren't talking about anything in the near future.

:like:

SAtown · #**963** Posted **Nov 30, 2016, 10:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AwesomeSAView

It is a big PAIN to drive to Austin in that horrible I35 traffic up there just to get a direct flight.

And then to leave my car in their parking garage for two weeks? No thank you! The money I'd save on the parking will go to my enjoyment on my trip!!
No, I'll just enjoy the lower fares of having to transfer planes. No biggie!

And hurting the local economy? Hardly, think so....
Economy booming.....

But, I do like the current site of our airport. It is centrally located.

You don't have to take 35 to get to the Austin airport! You can take the toll road, which has virtually no traffic, to 71, which connects west to the Austin airport!! I live Downtown and fly mostly out of Austin because of the lower rates and better selection of nonstop flights. Taking the toll road there is super easy, for future reference!! Parking is pretty reasonable there, too. However, I have never taken a two week vacation--in that case, I would probably park outside a buddy's home in Austin and have them drop me at the airport...

Onward · #**964** Posted **Dec 2, 2016, 5:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAtown

You don't have to take 35 to get to the Austin airport! You can take the toll road, which has virtually no traffic, to 71, which connects west to the Austin airport!! I live Downtown and fly mostly out of Austin because of the lower rates and better selection of nonstop flights. Taking the toll road there is super easy, for future reference!! Parking is pretty reasonable there, too. However, I have never taken a two week vacation--in that case, I would probably park outside a buddy's home in Austin and have them drop me at the airport...

I know quite few people who drive up to Austin for the same reason. Which is a major problem for our city. You're upping traffic numbers at AUS and not SAT. Why do you think prices are cheaper and more nonstop flights exists? Prices have dropped a bit at SAT as of late due to the entry of Allegiant and Frontier. But like I said the folks who drive up to Austin do nothing to help improve our own Airport and decrease our chances for added service. A nonstop between London and Austin exists, but I flat out refuse to take it. I've never flown out of Austin nor will I ever. More focused on doing my part for SA. Wish more people would do the same.

wwmiv · #**965** Posted **Dec 2, 2016, 6:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texan101

I know quite few people who drive up to Austin for the same reason. Which is a major problem for our city. You're upping traffic numbers at AUS and not SAT. Why do you think prices are cheaper and more nonstop flights exists? Prices have dropped a bit at SAT as of late due to the entry of Allegiant and Frontier. But like I said the folks who drive up to Austin do nothing to help improve our own Airport and decrease our chances for added service. A nonstop between London and Austin exists, but I flat out refuse to take it. I've never flown out of Austin nor will I ever. More focused on doing my part for SA. Wish more people would do the same.

This logic only works if a person is aiming to be strategic about both their time costs and the city's benefits if the counterfactual is that if enough people in San Antonio simultaneously switched their decision to fly out of Austin to flying out of San Antonio would change a route-with-a-stop to a non-stop route due to the shift in demand (such as your London example).

When the number of people switching their airport preference is not sufficient to change the route from stop to non-stop, then it is perfectly logical to drive to Austin to catch a non-stop flight provided that the total layover time they'd otherwise experience would be longer than the drive time to Austin (note that in this scenario, a person is maximizing their time, not money); even if you simultaneously would like to see your own city's airport develop its out route, the counterfactual here shows that it wouldn't be possible at all.

When the number of people switching their airport preference is sufficient to change the route from stop to non-stop, then the desire to aid your city's airport would mandate that each of them who has that desire switch their preference.

The problem is this: do we find ourselves in a situation (for any particular city to city flight path) where not enough people who travel to Austin for non-stop flights have that desire to aid San Antonio while simultaneously being large enough to, if they all flew out of San Antonio, guarantee a non-stop flight?

Of course, most people aren't strategic, so much of the above doesn't matter.

AwesomeSAView · #**966** Posted **Dec 2, 2016, 7:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

This logic only works if a person is aiming to be strategic about both their time costs and the city's benefits if the counterfactual is that if enough people in San Antonio simultaneously switched their decision to fly out of Austin to flying out of San Antonio would change a route-with-a-stop to a non-stop route due to the shift in demand (such as your London example).

When the number of people switching their airport preference is not sufficient to change the route from stop to non-stop, then it is perfectly logical to drive to Austin to catch a non-stop flight provided that the total layover time they'd otherwise experience would be longer than the drive time to Austin (note that in this scenario, a person is maximizing their time, not money); even if you simultaneously would like to see your own city's airport develop its out route, the counterfactual here shows that it wouldn't be possible at all.

When the number of people switching their airport preference is sufficient to change the route from stop to non-stop, then the desire to aid your city's airport would mandate that each of them who has that desire switch their preference.

The problem is this: do we find ourselves in a situation (for any particular city to city flight path) where not enough people who travel to Austin for non-stop flights have that desire to aid San Antonio while simultaneously being large enough to, if they all flew out of San Antonio, guarantee a non-stop flight?

Of course, most people aren't strategic, so much of the above doesn't matter.

NAH!
My friends and I will keep flying out of SAT airport for our out of country trips! Thanks Austin!

SAhometown · #**967** Posted **Dec 3, 2016, 1:58 AM**

Hey everyone! Long time lurker so i thought i would provide a little insight of what could become. Check out this link:https://your.heathrow.com/takingbrit...-destinations/

London is trying to finalize a 3rd runway for Heathrow for more domestic and long haul flights. New runway should be operational around 2025. I know it's a ways off but a foreign airline showing interest down the road is something I think we should look foreword to!

Here is another link:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/tr...ravellers.html

Runner · #**968** Posted **Dec 3, 2016, 2:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAhometown

Hey everyone! Long time lurker so i thought i would provide a little insight of what could become. Check out this link:https://your.heathrow.com/takingbrit...-destinations/

London is trying to finalize a 3rd runway for Heathrow for more domestic and long haul flights. New runway should be operational around 2025. I know it's a ways off but a foreign airline showing interest down the road is something I think we should look foreword to!

Here is another link:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/tr...ravellers.html

Wow that's 9 years from now! I'll be in a nursing home by then.

SAhometown · #**969** Posted **Dec 5, 2016, 6:14 AM**

Hello everyone! here is a link showing 2nd quarter of 2015 vs. 2nd of this year. Some interesting stats https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/.../messages/7900

San Antonio International can support direct flights to Boston,Laguardia, and Reagan International (Washington D.C.). I believe it is only a matter of time. Even Cleveland,Sacramento, and Portland someday as well. Anyways more plus than minuses!

P.S. I just google the airport codes to find out which is which.

SAtown · #**970** Posted **Dec 5, 2016, 10:55 PM**

I could be totally wrong in this assumption, but I feel like San Antonio has lost a lot of good flights (either direct or at a decent time) ever since Dallas Love Field was allowed to fly planes outside the state. For example, Southwest has gotten rid of a lot of the Vegas flights I used to take for weekend trips...

Restless 1 · #**971** Posted **Dec 6, 2016, 7:02 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAtown

I could be totally wrong in this assumption, but I feel like San Antonio has lost a lot of good flights (either direct or at a decent time) ever since Dallas Love Field was allowed to fly planes outside the state. For example, Southwest has gotten rid of a lot of the Vegas flights I used to take for weekend trips...

If the economy picks up, those flights will return. IMHO, while Texas, and San Antonio in particular, has been spared the worst of the downturn, people are still acting with an abundance of caution.

Every time I've been to Vegas, you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting an Texan.

babysal · #**972** Posted **Dec 7, 2016, 4:30 PM**

https://therivardreport.com/air-cana...o-and-toronto/

Air Canada will launch daily nonstop air service between San Antonio and Toronto on May 1, 2017, airline and City officials announced Wednesday, giving San Antonio a direct flight to an international destination outside Mexico.

Toronto, Canada’s largest and most diverse city with 2.65 million people, is a gateway city for Air Canada flights to dozens of international destinations in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Click here to view the airline’s global flight map.

SAhometown · #**973** Posted **Dec 7, 2016, 10:03 PM**

Honestly did not see this coming! May 1st of 2017. It's about time!https://therivardreport.com/air-cana...o-and-toronto/

AwesomeSAView · #**974** Posted **Dec 7, 2016, 10:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Restless 1

If the economy picks up, those flights will return. IMHO, while Texas, and San Antonio in particular, has been spared the worst of the downturn, people are still acting with an abundance of caution.

Every time I've been to Vegas, you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting an Texan.

What are you talking about "if the economy picks up"? The economy and jobs have been at an ALL time high under the current administration. Merry Christmas to the "incoming" administration!!

And yes to Air Canada!!

More to come!

adtobias · #**975** Posted **Dec 8, 2016, 2:24 AM**

That great news. Now to just get AirFrance to get a direct flight from SAT-CDG.

texboy · #**976** Posted **Dec 8, 2016, 3:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by adtobias

That great news. Now to just get AirFrance to get a direct flight from SAT-CDG.

If CVG can have a direct to France... why not?!

Restless 1 · #**977** Posted **Dec 8, 2016, 9:37 AM**

Both surprised and not surprised to learn that this is the first international flight from SAT that is not in Mexico.

Small minded thinking has kept SAT behind curve since at least the seventies.

Restless 1 · #**978** Posted **Dec 8, 2016, 9:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by AwesomeSAView

What are you talking about "if the economy picks up"? The economy and jobs have been at an ALL time high under the current administration. Merry Christmas to the "incoming" administration!!

And yes to Air Canada!!

More to come!

Exactly who's economy are you talking about? SA's, and Texas' in general, has been fine, but not to the point where people are spending, as opposed to saving, disposable income. 95 million not in the workforce is what is an all time high. Incoming administration will fix that, and already is.

As people become comfortable in the economy, they will travel more, and SA to LV will see more direct flights.

Didn't think I posted anything confusing. Sorry you didn't understand.

Onward · #**979** Posted **Dec 8, 2016, 12:31 PM**

Very nice add, and one I plan on using when crossing the pond. Previously the double connection prevented me from booking with them.

jaga185 · #**980** Posted **Dec 8, 2016, 4:03 PM**

I feel this conversation might get political... let's not...

When it comes to getting flights and the economy, we have been on a good path and let's hope it continues this momentum so we can continue this path.