HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #241  
Old Posted May 14, 2008, 11:28 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by cozmoose View Post
This new terminal has been in the works for how many years?

Airlines can't claim they didn't have notice.
it started before 2001 and resumed in 2002 i believe....
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #242  
Old Posted May 17, 2008, 7:28 AM
sugit sugit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: DT Sacramento
Posts: 3,076
http://www.sacbee.com/103/story/945786.html

Plane talk: Speaking of terminals, we hear two national construction companies are about to be hired to build the new one at Sac International.

One will be Turner Construction Co. of New York City. The other, The Austin Co. of Cleveland.

Out of the running is St. Louis-based McCarthy Building Cos., which originally was picked, along with Turner, for the $700 million terminal and concourse work, part of the airport's $1.3 billion expansion.

But disagreements over contract language eliminated McCarthy and talks began with Austin.

Unless there's another hitch, staffers will recommend the deals be approved at the Sacramento County supes meeting May 28.

There's a rush to get the two firms signed up and construction started.

For one thing, delays inevitably push up prices of big construction projects. For another, there's a fear that the Federal Emergency Management Agency could identify the entire Natomas area as flood-prone and limit construction, says Leonard Takayama, deputy director of the county airport system.

"There's a need to move smartly," he says, "so we don't get caught with FEMA changing its designation for the area."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #243  
Old Posted May 17, 2008, 7:31 AM
doriankage doriankage is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 150
Sacramento airport director stands by his expansion plan

Sacramento airport director stands by his expansion plan
By Tony Bizjak - tbizjak@sacbee.com

Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, May 17, 2008
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B4

Sacramento's Hardy Acree is, this week at least, the man the airlines really resent.

But the blunt-talking airport director doesn't have time or inclination to care. He's pushing full throttle on a $1.27 billion Sacramento International Airport expansion. And the airlines' anger over the price tag just tells him they aren't thinking ahead.

A Porsche-driving pilot with a penchant for fine wine, haute cuisine and high art, Acree doesn't live life on the cheap, nor does he think Sacramento should.

"I've always felt Sacramento needs to think bigger," Acree said. "We could be anything we want to be."

Hired by County Executive Terry Schutten in 1999 from the Houston airport, Acree got the task of plotting a bigger future for an undersized, aging airport.

That future – and Acree's career moment – is here.

Workers at the airport are expected to break ground next month on perhaps the biggest public works project in Sacramento history.

Acree, Schutten and Sacramento County's Board of Supervisors have designed a gleaming four-story steel-and-glass terminal in the center of the airport to replace Terminal B.

It will be backed by a hotel tower. A people-mover tram will take riders to a 19-gate concourse on the airfield. A second parking garage will serve the new terminal.

"This is a pivotal moment for the next 50 years," Schutten said. "The airport will be a significant economic engine for this region."

But as Acree and staff tie up last-minute loose ends, one thread has become more knot than neat bow.

Led by Sacramento's dominant carrier, Southwest, resident airlines charge Acree with twisting their arms to pay more than they should for what they think will be an oversized facility.

The airport balances its books with rent from airlines, fees on fliers and other charges.

But the economy is down, gas prices have jumped, and airlines are in a spiral of bankruptcies, forced mergers and cutbacks.

Sacramento's expansion costs are like pouring fuel on a fire, they say.

The disagreement this week bordered on the personal.

During a heated board hearing, airline representatives said they suspect Acree is retaliating – imposing a higher-than-necessary fee – after the two sides failed to negotiate an agreement.

"It seems punitive," Southwest executive Ron Ricks told The Bee recently. "The foundation of Mr. Acree's position is: I'm going to confiscate your profits … because I can."

Acree said airlines brought the situation on themselves, repeatedly shifting positions during negotiations, forcing an impasse.

The airlines last week pleaded with county supervisors, asking them to rethink the financing. Supervisors instead voted to increase fees 45 percent.

"It now is time we move forward," Acree said.

It's what Acree has been doing most of his life. He grew up in a family of migrant workers in what he calls the backwaters of Arkansas. He chopped cotton during the school year and picked berries in Michigan in summer.

Acree today is a lean, buttoned-downed businessman with a tightly trimmed gray mustache and an annual salary of $175,000. He still speaks with a bit of an Arkansas twang and references barns and shotguns in conversations about bond debt and strategic planning.

His interest in aviation, he says, started with seeing silver and orange Air Force planes on maneuvers. "I was fascinated how something that big could be suspended in air."

He worked as a mechanic in the Air Force, considered making a living as a pilot, but ended up with a master's degree in aviation administration.

He no longer flies. As a hobby, it's too expensive. He drives a cherry red Porsche Carrera.

"Sports cars, and Porsches in particular," he says, "are the closest thing to flying."

Acree dismisses the airlines' suggestion that he's trying to build a Taj Mahal in Natomas. San Francisco and San Jose also are spending more than $1 billion on airport expansions.

He acknowledges a billion dollars is no small thing.

"It's better to aim for the moon and hit the side of the barn than to aim for the barn and hit your foot," he said.

Sacramento will grow, he said. "You have to think long-term. The airlines today cannot grasp that."

Such comments have riled airlines officials, and likely added to the heat at last week's showdown, but Acree's boss backs his airport director.

"He can be firm when needed to be," County Executive Schutten said.

The airlines will continue to make the case that the planned fees are onerous. Meantime, several said, they'll consider reduced service and higher fares.

"It will impact our fare structure," JetBlue's Mark Busalacchi said. "To what degree, I can't say. We'll go back and determine that."

"We're trying to grow here," U.S. Airways executive David Anderson said. "We'll see. We'll look at the numbers."

Acree said he didn't want the new fees. In a sense, however, it fits his think-big approach.

Under the former fee system – called residual – airlines covered the difference between the airport's annual expenses and revenue from non-airline sources, such as concessions, parking fees and passenger ticket charges.

Because the two sides couldn't agree on changes, Acree said the airport had to switch to a "compensatory" arrangement, which adds both some financial risk and potential reward to the airport. Under the new system, the airport will charge airlines set fees. That leaves the airport responsible for revenue shortfalls, but it benefits when non-airline revenues beat projections.

Airlines can protest the fees as "unreasonable," and possibly delay construction. However, in a recent interview with The Bee, Southwest officials said they don't plan to protest because it would be hard to win.

Meanwhile, Acree's expansion plan cleared a key hurdle this month. Bond agencies gave the airport an A1 rating on $600 million of new bonds.

For Acree, it was endorsement of what the airport is doing, and what he thinks Sacramento should do more.

"I encourage leaders to think big, take risks," he said. "At least that's what I'm trying to do."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #244  
Old Posted May 17, 2008, 3:47 PM
Web Web is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 523
airlines are as bad as big oil in some ways.....

but then airlines are going bk and the oil companies are having mega record profits quarter after quarter.......where is the investigation!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #245  
Old Posted May 20, 2008, 6:22 PM
travis bickle travis bickle is offline
silly slackergeek
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Web View Post
airlines are as bad as big oil in some ways.....

but then airlines are going bk and the oil companies are having mega record profits quarter after quarter.......where is the investigation!
You know, I ignore a lot of what you write because it is just so spectacularly ignorant. But as a famous man once said in Dirty Harry, "I gots ta know." Care to say just how airlines are as "bad" as big oil? There are few industries as competitive and cutthroat as is the airline industry. Although many bemoan the decline in in-flight service, I can fly from San Diego to almost anywhere in California for $100. I can fly first class on Virgin to SFO for $200 (still not really worth it) and to Dulles for $600 (waaaaay worth it.) I can do this because of competition and savvy business plans. I can do this because airline executives look for every opportunity to keep costs low. That is what they are trying to do with SMF. I disagree with their position completely, but I understand (and appreciate) the effort.

Short term economic cycles can not be allowed to force mediocrity onto this project. Although Acree can be a jerk and can come across as rigid and, frankly, rather unpleasant (I briefly knew him when he worked at the Riverside Airport in the early 90s.), he is absolutely right to aim high on this and to demand execution. His driving personality will be required if this project has any hope of becoming a reality.

The airlines are using anything they can to try to garner support for their position. They want a cheaper terminal that will have less negative impact on their business plans. They are trying to tie a slowing economy to their cause. It's BS of course, but that's all it is.

The idea that airlines behave as some sort of cartel is laughable. Capitalism rewards the swift and punishes the sluggish. There are few better examples of this than the airline industry.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #246  
Old Posted May 20, 2008, 7:38 PM
snfenoc's Avatar
snfenoc snfenoc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Steve in East Sac
Posts: 1,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Web View Post
airlines are as bad as big oil in some ways.....

but then airlines are going bk and the oil companies are having mega record profits quarter after quarter.......where is the investigation!
Inflation also continues to rise quarter after quarter - that might have something to do with those "record" profits.
__________________
Sincerely,
Steve in East Sac
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #247  
Old Posted May 20, 2008, 8:20 PM
jsf8278's Avatar
jsf8278 jsf8278 is offline
Edge_City
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfenoc View Post
Inflation also continues to rise quarter after quarter - that might have something to do with those "record" profits.
This sounds like it came straight from Rush Limbaugh or Shawn Hannity. Did you even think this out before you wrote it out? Inflation has almost nothing to do with oil companies profits. Check the price of a barrel of oil over the past 3-4 years and compare it with their profits and you can seen why their profits are at record (or "record" as you say) levels.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #248  
Old Posted May 20, 2008, 8:45 PM
snfenoc's Avatar
snfenoc snfenoc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Steve in East Sac
Posts: 1,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsf8278 View Post
This sounds like it came straight from Rush Limbaugh or Shawn Hannity. Did you even think this out before you wrote it out? Inflation has almost nothing to do with oil companies profits. Check the price of a barrel of oil over the past 3-4 years and compare it with their profits and you can seen why their profits are at record (or "record" as you say) levels.
That sounds like it came straight from Michael Moore. I'm getting real tired of you socialists and your lack of respect for freedom. You don't have to agree, but please show me a little respect and don't talk down to me. When I look at the profit margins, when I consider the commodities market, when I add in the value of our dollar, and when I understand the extreme pressure oil companies have to maintain the billions of dollars in dividends and share prices that contribute to your investment portfolio, I don't see anything obscene.
__________________
Sincerely,
Steve in East Sac
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #249  
Old Posted May 20, 2008, 11:14 PM
travis bickle travis bickle is offline
silly slackergeek
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfenoc View Post
That sounds like it came straight from Michael Moore. I'm getting real tired of you socialists and your lack of respect for freedom. You don't have to agree, but please show me a little respect and don't talk down to me. When I look at the profit margins, when I consider the commodities market, when I add in the value of our dollar, and when I understand the extreme pressure oil companies have to maintain the billions of dollars in dividends and share prices that contribute to your investment portfolio, I don't see anything obscene.
And, the number one reason oil prices are skyrocketing is, as always, supply and demand. Don't they teach Adam Smith any more in college? The Indian and Chinese economies are exploding but supply has remained for the most part constant. Supply is set primarily by OPEC, not by the individual oil companies.

I don't hold the great oil companies blameless, but basic economics pretty clearly explains why oil prices are so high. It's the same reason we haven't seen a substantial decrease in construction costs despite a domestic economic slowdown.

But you don't see me blaming "Big Concrete."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #250  
Old Posted May 22, 2008, 1:24 AM
Web Web is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 523
road building cost have come down......raw materials are not skyrocketing like the past, profit margins are slim. getting a good bang for buck right now.


And I wasnt complaining about oil companies making a profit...but look at the massive #'s. The price of gasoline is just being tested on how high it will go before demand cuts back.....at that point they will stabilize it yet again.....cant let oil disappear from the #1 spot.........
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #251  
Old Posted May 22, 2008, 3:57 PM
travis bickle travis bickle is offline
silly slackergeek
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Web View Post
road building cost have come down......raw materials are not skyrocketing like the past, profit margins are slim. getting a good bang for buck right now.


And I wasnt complaining about oil companies making a profit...but look at the massive #'s. The price of gasoline is just being tested on how high it will go before demand cuts back.....at that point they will stabilize it yet again.....cant let oil disappear from the #1 spot.........
Well, none of the above qualifies as a "substantial decrease" and I'm still waiting to hear how the airlines are as "bad as big oil." But let's just forget it and try to stay focused on SMF. If we're going to inject politics, let's try to discuss how politics might affect development at SMF and leave broad, squealing and ignorant generalizations to the ubiquitous political boards.

OK?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #252  
Old Posted May 22, 2008, 7:04 PM
travis bickle travis bickle is offline
silly slackergeek
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 470
Could be a tough year for ExpressJet

I'm hearing from people who should know that ExpressJet will cut service from SMF to Bakersfield, Tulsa and Oklahoma City starting in August. This is part of closing those stations completely. This could be just the start.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #253  
Old Posted May 23, 2008, 1:29 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,977
I was reading in the Chronicle yesterday that American Airlines is pulling out of Oakland completely as of September, ending six decades of service there..


BTW I agree with everything Travis said in regards to what we might see happen.

I'm doubtful any airline will end or curtail service simply because Sacramento raises it's fees for five years. SMF is still one of the most profitable city for Southwest and they're not about to give that up in this economy.

They may shuffle some flights like they recently did by adding flights to Denver but scaling back a couple of flights to the L.A. area.

But just the fact that they added flights even knowing their fees were going up says a lot.

And lastly the fees will still be cheaper than at least two bay area airports and the fees will be scaled back after 2013..

We're still looking at mergers, but that doesn't mean a reduction in service. When U.S. Airways and America West merged it didn't result in any loss of service to my knowledge. They simply operate the existing flights business as usual.

The airport is still growing in terms of passengers and flights. Airlines will add or remove flights that are profitable or not so profitable. But the airport is stil in a growth phase.

BTW as Acree said, this plane has already left the gate in reference to construction of the new facility. Half the $1.2 billion in bonds were already sold; (probably more so now). There's no way to redesign this now and the airlines know it. They are only posturing, but they also know that in 2013 once the first phase is complete their fees will go down and Sacramento will have one of the premiere airport facilities in the state if not the entire country.
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright

Last edited by urban_encounter; May 23, 2008 at 1:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #254  
Old Posted May 23, 2008, 9:55 PM
otnemarcaS's Avatar
otnemarcaS otnemarcaS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis bickle View Post
I'm hearing from people who should know that ExpressJet will cut service from SMF to Bakersfield, Tulsa and Oklahoma City starting in August. This is part of closing those stations completely. This could be just the start.
Right on the money as usual.

ExpressJet adds flights, cuts some routes out of Sacramento

By Bob Shallit - bshallit@sacbee.com
Published 1:13 pm PDT Friday, May 23, 2008

Startup carrier ExpressJet Airlines is adding short-haul flights out of Sacramento this summer while cutting some longer trips, part of a route shake-up dictated by rising fuel costs.

Starting Aug. 23, the Houston-based airline will begin three daily flights between Sacramento and Los Angeles and Ontario airports, plus a single round-trip between here and Monterey. On the same date, ExpressJet will cease its non-stop service between Sacramento and Tulsa, Oklahoma City and Bakersfield, spokeswoman Kristy Nicholas said Friday.

The company, which launched in April 2007, also is eliminating its non-stop flights from Sacramento to San Antonio but will continue to operate that route with one-stop service, Nicholas said. One-stop ExpressJet flights also will be available between Sacramento and two other Texas cities - Austin and El Paso - as of Aug. 23.

Nicholas said the changes were prompted by a surge in fuel prices that have made longer routes less profitable.

"But," she said, "we have seen a lot of success in our shorter flights, like those within California."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #255  
Old Posted May 23, 2008, 10:00 PM
otnemarcaS's Avatar
otnemarcaS otnemarcaS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 395
Friday, May 23, 2008 - 1:48 PM PDT
Sacramento Business Journal

B.Y.O. pretzels: US Airways ends free snacks

US Airways Group Inc. no longer will offer snacks on its domestic flights, starting June 1.

The Tempe, Ariz.-based airline says the cost-cutting measure stems from rising fuel costs.

In addition to charging travelers for checking a second bag and for premium seating in coach, US Airways is evaluating other fees for services.

US Airways (NYSE: LCC) operates 3,800 flights a day to more than 230 destinations in the Americas and Europe. It is the No. 3 carrier at Sacramento International Airport, carrying nearly 600,000 passengers to or from the region in 2007, 5.5 percent of the total.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #256  
Old Posted May 23, 2008, 10:08 PM
otnemarcaS's Avatar
otnemarcaS otnemarcaS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 395


So, there will be no regular meals, no snacks, charges of appx $25 and $15 for 1st and 2nd luggages, charges for curbside check-in, charges to select seating, plus a newly announced additional $60 surcharge on many airlines (as reported in SF Chronicle today). Sure glad I don't have much summer flying planned for the rest of this year. Gonna be brutal for airlines and travellers alike. Can't wait for them to start charging for a glass of water.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #257  
Old Posted May 23, 2008, 10:35 PM
jsf8278's Avatar
jsf8278 jsf8278 is offline
Edge_City
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 211
I get the feeling this is the beginning of the end for some of the airlines. Having to cut snacks on planes to cut costs seems pretty pathetic.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #258  
Old Posted May 24, 2008, 5:47 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Next time, take the train!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #259  
Old Posted May 24, 2008, 3:44 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Next time, take the train!

I've been saying for a long time that the only way this nation will change the way it grows, the way it travels etc, would be if gas prices hit $5 a gallon.

There are going to be bumps, especially considering this is happening about the same time as the housing crisis. But there is potential here that communitites will curb sprawl in favor of promoting smart growth principals. The effect on Sacramento could even be more positive as Sacramento is definitely a commuter community. People pour into the downtown in the morning and pour out in the evening.

The same goes for the 50 office corrdior and Roseville.

I hope RT takes advantage of this by marketing itself (especially the train)..
Focus on making it safer, push the fact that it is less expensive, more cosmopolitan and good for the environment.

Let's build the streetcar systme, but lets consider reestablishing the stretcar to communities that would welcome it. Further down J street, maybe 21st street up Freeport, Broadway, Stockton Blvd..

I know a lot of people will think I'm nuts, but i have no problem with gas prices going up. You wont here me complain about it at all. Cheap subsidized gas is the reason that precious farm land has been lost to sprawl, the highwways are congested with gas guzzling SUVs (and yes i have a Jeep that I rarely have to fill up because i live so close to my job and i now own a bike).

Now is our opportunity to invest heavily in local, regional and even an enhanced national rail system. Now is our opporunity to stand firm and ensure communities stick to the Blueprint for growth locally.. Start with infill, transit oriented development and high density (whether low, mid or highrise)...

Continue making the streets safer for people to walk or bike to work (btw I give Fargo and the council credit for pushing this the past few years)..


As far as air travel, there will be consolidations and more airlines going under. But again SMF serves about 4 millioon people. It continued to grow even as other airports lost huge market shares in the aftermath of the dot com bust and 9-11. SMF will continue to grow. But hopefully it will serve a more transit friendly community.

And who knows; maybe with the price of fuel going up; light rail will make it out to the airport faster...?
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #260  
Old Posted May 24, 2008, 6:06 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Expanding the streetcar system beyond the short starter system is absolutely part of the plan, they just want to start with a short system and work out from there. That's what Portland did, for example--in fact, they started their first expansion of the streetcar system shortly before they completed the track on the starter line.

The problem is that streetcar systems get less efficient the farther out they go. Imagine a streetcar network like a bicycle tire: each line gets farther apart the farther you get from the central city, making far-out locations less practical from a single hub. The result during the streetcar era was star-shaped urban development: cars actually made cities denser on a whole because they allowed people to live on the inexpensive land between the transit "spokes."

According to my wife, who is an economist and way smarter than me, the real breakpoint where serious mode shifts in transportation start to happen will be around $7 a gallon. People thought that was kind of crazy a few years back, but people can definitely see $7 a gallon gas from here.

We really have been living in an absolutely unique period in human history. At any other time but the past century or so, people had to live close to the place they worked, and didn't travel all that much. Our abundance of power and human ingenuity at utilizing that power has given us a unique era, but that era may well be coming to an end.
We already know how to solve the problem--travel less, live close to your work, live closer together. Basically the way people have always lived. But we've gotten pretty used to our jet-set era, and people are upset about the idea of giving it up.

But talking about air travel specifically: The world of airlines is hardly a free-market environment, not with the billions in subsidies that airlines get every year (plus the occasional federal bailout.) Amtrak is subsidized, but not nearly to such an extent--and to a far smaller extent than national railroad systems in other countries. If rising fuel prices make air travel less practical, the greater fuel efficiency of trains for long-distance travel will start to become more important, as long as we decide to pay attention to that transit mode.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:00 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.