Sacramento International Airport (SMF)

[econgrad]

Although the bond market killed the hotel. I am equally disgusted as Brian is with the "can't do" attitude that plagues this region. Its just another let down in my eyes... BrianSac I feel your pain!

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by Phillip

And even as it is right now, with no additions, I like flying out of SMF better than Oakland, San Jose, or San Francisco. Terminal A anyhow.

Who doesnt, I hate driving to SFO. I am researching a trans-atlantic trip now through wholesalers and the options and prices out of SFO are way way better than anything out of SMF, yet I will still probably avoid flying out of SFO.

But, SFO is a fantastic airport compared to SMF. If it were not so far, I'd fly out of SFO over SMF, anytime. Compared to a lot of other airports around the world SFO aint that crowded; its kinda low key.

[BrianSac]

Edit

[Phillip]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

I think you are missing the point, the airport hotel was supposed be a little higher end than those taco bell boxes along I-5. Think long term, quality, convenience and something unique. Think 20yrs from now, with passenger levels doubled, business travel up; perhaps a whole new type of business traveler that we do not have now; and double the amout of pilots and crew using the hotel as well.

I don't object to a higher end hotel, something like a Hyatt or Westin, at the terminal, or on the airport grounds outside the terminal. I'd probably never stay there myself (I like having stores and restaurants nearby and I don't spend $200 on a hotel room) but if the Sacramento market can support a 4* at the airport I'm all for it. It's like I don't care about the Kings, even when they're winning, but I still want them to have a new arena.

My objection was market based: that I don't think there's enough business for a 4* hotel at the airport now, mostly because so many new hotels with airport shuttles were already built on Del Paso; 5 or 6 of them just in the last few years.

If a right-sized 4* had opened at the airport five years ago, so that it had time to take root early on, then I don't think so many "taco bell box" hotels would have gone up on Del Paso. But they were built and now there's excess capacity up there at a time when passenger counts are declining.

Like you say, those Del Paso hotels look hideous on the outside, cookie cutter, every one of them; the hotel equivalent of a bad Natomas subdivision. The Four Points is the only one I've stayed at (for $50 on Priceline). It's stark and cheap looking from the outside, prefab, but on the inside it's sharp: contemporary, comfortable with a small bar and grill in the lobby, earthtones, lots of pottery and stone. Modern rooms, everything fresh and new.

The Four Points isn't a 4* hotel but probably 98% of people who need a room near Sacramento airport would be very satisfied with the accomodations at the Four Points, or any of the other hotels across the freeway---even if they're ugly on the outside. The other 2% who don't find the Four Points good enough will keep staying downtown at the Hyatt or Sheraton or Citizen and taking cabs. The downtown hotels need their business now too.

It's not just the 4* market at the airport that's neglected; so is the much larger 2* market. All those new hotels on Del Paso charge the same: $100-150/night, and there's nothing under $100. If you've only got $50 or $75 for a room it's still Richards Blvd or Woodland, now that the Airport Host's torn down. (And I'm not objecting to the Host disappearing. It was way past its time and standing in the way. Still, there used to be a cheap hotel near the airport and now there isn't.)

If everything had been "master planned" from the start maybe there might be a modest sized 4* at or near the airport and some diversity of 3*, 2*, and 1* along Del Paso. Instead there's nothing at the airport and five essentially identical hotels at the same price along Del Paso.

Oh well. Sacramento.

An aside: Jack's Eats, Daphne's Greek, and Tuk Tuk are in the shopping center across the street from that Del Paso hotel cluster. With a little imagination you can pretend you're in Midtown!

[BrianSac]

The Airport Hotel provides something unique to your above mix. It is on airport grounds, preferably above the terminal. (You can watch the planes you go by; not that I care about that but there are plane freaks that do.) No shuttles of any kind are required if you stay at an above the terminal hotel. To be in your comfy 4* bed within minutes of getting your bags is a big plus for some people and they are willing to pay for that convenience. Think long term, in an improved economy; I would think it would be profitable for the Airport/County.

If you have to pay $100-$150 to stay at the taco box hotel on Del Paso, some might feel it is worth it to stay at the 4* Airport hotel considering the bill will be expensed. They are at the hotel to sleep and catch a flight the next day. These people could be ma and pa kettle from Marysville taking their biannual flight to Maui, or a business man from Chicago who does regular business in Northern California.

Might I add, I rarely stay in hotels unless it is for one night and the company is paying the bill.
Rather, I stay in condos, and small homes for longer trips. Value is key. For the same price as a 4* hotel, sometimes less, you get much more for your money when you stay in a condo, small home or apt. No matter how highly rated a hotel is; it’s still usually just one room without a refrigerator or microwave. Individually owned vacation/business condos, apts and small homes have full size kitchens, extra bedrooms, extra baths, and all the amenities of a home. And they are available everywhere: countryside, small town, big cities.

Also, I have no problem staying at taco box extended stay hotels, usually they have a refrigerator, microwave, parking in front of my door, and accept dogs.

[Phillip]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

some might feel it is worth it to stay at the 4* Airport hotel considering the bill will be expensed.

I agree, Brian, but I don't think there are enough of those people in Sac to sustain a new airport hotel. The pressure now is to reduce corporate travel expenses...less flying, less expensive hotels, etc.

It's moot since hotels as a class aren't getting financed now. But if an airport hotel had happened it would have been a feather in Sac's cap and something unique. Meanwhile people who need to fly in or out of Sacramento will keep doing that, with or without the hotel.

Do you know any airports on the scale of Sacramento's that have a hotel in terminal? The ones I think of offhand are at mega airports: Ohare, London, DFW, Orlando...more international gateway type cities. And some of the busiest airports don't have one: ATL, LGA, SFO.

If Sacramento wants to keep up with the Joneses think about this: there's a Motel 6-San Francisco Airport; Motel 6-Oakland Airport; Motel 6-San Jose Airport. But no Motel 6-SMF!

[BrianSac]

Yes, it is too bad the Bonds took a dump in the sewer. I commend Acree and the County people for thinking long term and trying to be ahead of the curve.

[Majin]

^Thats all you can ask for, they Sac County tried to go balls in on the airport but got caught up in a bad economy. I think its unfair to blame anybody on this one.

[Phillip]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Who doesnt, I hate driving to SFO. I am researching a trans-atlantic trip now through wholesalers and the options and prices out of SFO are way way better than anything out of SMF, yet I will still probably avoid flying out of SFO.

Ten years ago there were more occasions when driving to SFO paid off...fare differences of $200 or more. Lately the differences haven't been enough to justify the extra drive time, higher parking rates at SFO, and the hassle of dealing with a larger airport. (SFO is more lowkey than others though, as you say).

It's all very date and route specific though. Maybe I've been lucky with my destinations. Right now I'm looking at an exception: a roundtrip between SMF and MSP in April. Northwest has nonstop from SMF for $500 or nonstop from SFO for $340. Or I can fly from SMF with one stop in Denver for $260. I think it will be Denver, and I can get a Wolfgang Puck pizza at DIA.

A couple times, not lately, I've gotten United flights out of SFO with a turboprop connection between SMF and SFO. That's fun, flying so low over I-80 you can almost read the billboards.

[Phillip]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

I commend Acree and the County people for thinking long term and trying to be ahead of the curve.

Yes. My comments about the airport hotel weren't criticism of Mr. Acree or the original airport vision. We were building for reasonably expected growth, and we were blindsided.

[Web]

Anyone catch the news that Delta is moving the Northwest ticket counter and gate from Terminal B to its spot at Terminal A??

Terminal B is getting pretty lonely.....but very efficient!

[travis bickle]

The word is that at least two development firms are examining the documents now to see if there is a possible deal. The County wants a developer as an equity partner to put up to $23 mil. into the deal. That's a pretty large chunk of change, but if you could get favorable terms in a ground lease and other concessions, you might be able to make it a go.

For those who don't know, it is to be a Westin and they are projecting around 68% occupancy @ a bit over a buck-eighty a night when the hotel opens with the terminal in 2012. Both of these rise over the next 30 years. This is well in line with Sacramento's finer hotels. I don't know what the occupancy rate was for the old Host hotel, but I know it wasn't getting anything approaching that nightly rate. 185 rooms isn't all that great, maybe they could increase the number of rooms to get it to pencil better.

[Phillip]

Originally Posted by Web

Anyone catch the news that Delta is moving the Northwest ticket counter and gate from Terminal B to its spot at Terminal A??

Terminal B is getting pretty lonely.....but very efficient!

I saw that, Web. Northwest was the only airline I flew out of Terminal B, so this is good news for me. But the reason why Northwest can move--they're down to two flights a day out of SMF--isn't so good.

[Phillip]

Originally Posted by travis bickle

I don't know what the occupancy rate was for the old Host hotel, but I know it wasn't getting anything approaching that nightly rate.

I stayed at the Host once, like ten years ago. It was around $65, iirc. More than it should have been but that was before the Del Paso hotels were built, and the Host had no competition.

Unrelated but another thing I like about SMF is that AM/PM gas station at the airport entry, charging normal AM/PM prices for gas. The gas stations at many airports, if you can find a gas station at all, usually jack the price up about 20 cents from what you can get in town.

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by Phillip

I saw that, Web. Northwest was the only airline I flew out of Terminal B, so this is good news for me. But the reason why Northwest can move--they're down to two flights a day out of SMF--isn't so good.

For years Northwest has flown two flights to MSP in the winter; three flights in the summer. Two flights/day now is typical for them.

[Phillip]

At the peak I think I remember four or five Northwest flights out of Sacramento including a flight or two to Detroit. That was a couple years ago, probably in summer. (That I remember something doesn't always mean it happened.)

With Delta and Northwest merging they had to combine ticketing and gates at one terminal or the other. I think the Northwest name will be phased out completely.

The last time I flew Northwest out of Sac, in January, the Northwest ticket agent said I was the last customer of the day and after me she was closing the counter for the day. And it was noon!

[Pistola916]

SMF had flights to Detroit? I only knew about NWA to MSP.

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by Phillip

At the peak I think I remember four or five Northwest flights out of Sacramento including a flight or two to Detroit. That was a couple years ago, probably in summer. (That I remember something doesn't always mean it happened.)

With Delta and Northwest merging they had to combine ticketing and gates at one terminal or the other. I think the Northwest name will be phased out completely.

The last time I flew Northwest out of Sac, in January, the Northwest ticket agent said I was the last customer of the day and after me she was closing the counter for the day. And it was noon!

That peak must have been many, many years ago. NW never flew to Detroit (one of it's hubs) from Sacramento, but it did fly to Memphis (another hub) for awhile. But that was at least 10 years ago and probably closer to 20. I think you are correct in that NW operations topped out at four or five flights/day. Northwest's flights out of Sacramento enjoy some of the highest load factors in Sacramento reaching well into the upper 80s/low 90s, but with this merger, I wouldn't be surprised to see the loss of at least one flight out of Delta/Northwest's combined operations. Were I a betting man (and I am), I would guess a flight to SLC. You are also correct that when the merger is complete, there will no longer be a Northwest Airlines.

[cozmoose]

with the potential hotel being right above the terminal, what could they do to eliminate the jet noise from rattling the hotel?

[Phillip]

Originally Posted by travis bickle

That peak must have been many, many years ago. NW never flew to Detroit (one of it's hubs) from Sacramento, but it did fly to Memphis (another hub) for awhile. But that was at least 10 years ago and probably closer to 20. I think you are correct in that NW operations topped out at four or five flights/day. Northwest's flights out of Sacramento enjoy some of the highest load factors in Sacramento reaching well into the upper 80s/low 90s

Maybe it was Memphis then, not Detroit. It sure doesn't seem like 10 years ago, but it's possible.

Anyhow...the Delta/Northwest merger makes it more likely that nonstop service betwen SMF and MSP will be preserved. And you're right about load factor: those planes are usually pretty full.