San Antonio, Texas is the 24th most populous metropolitan area in the United States. It is larger than Portland, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Nashville, and its nearby neighbor, Austin. Yet despite its size and being a growing city, SAT has relatively limited air service. You hardly ever hear of SAT as being a contender for a European flight despite being bigger than the aforementioned cities. Besides having a handful of flights to Mexico and new service to YYZ, SAT has no international service. SAT doesn't even have a flight to BOS. JFK service is limited with just a single dailly flight on DL. Can anyone provide any insight as to why SAT has such limited air service for a city its size? It's a lovely city with many tourist attractions. When will we see SAT experience explosive growth like AUS just up the road? Will SAT get a transoceanic flight? Or is AUS bound to become the primary international airport for South central Texas?

Actually, Austin is the faster growing city and will surpass San Antonio in the coming decade. Austin also has a large number of younger, wealthy travelers that San Antonio seems to lack. As a consequence, Austin is getting their second London non-stop with Norwegian next March. I'd also say the odds of Amazon picking Austin for the "other" headquarters is pretty good. Amazon already has a large fulfillment center north of San Antonio (cheaper jobs). If I were to guess, I'd say the new headquarters will locate just south of Austin (better jobs). Exactly where the airport is...

Don't get me wrong. I love San Antonio - I have lived here for 36 years - but we just don't have the energy Austin has. And the days of aviation glory - like Kelly AFB - are slowly passing. Thank God we have the Spurs!

It's all about economics and demographics! The populations is one of the most Hispanic skewing populations of any metro area in the US, primarily tied to Mexico...thus the flights to Mexico. From an economic perspective, SAT is not a higher-income area - so income for leisure trips is limited. And its business base, while growing, still lags that of smaller metro areas such as AUS. Also, it is a tourist destination but it is a more regional tourist destination (many visitors from TX and nearby states). As for European services, PHX (which is much larger than SAT) currently only has one European route. So, it's dependent upon demand -- not metro population size.

When I lived in SAT, I maintained that AUS and SAT should have built a joint airport halfway between the two cities with high-speed rail linking them. That would be a GREAT airport.

SAT is mostly a one-trick pony when it comes to large traffic: military...and they're mostly domestic travel that can be handled via the numerous flights on the US3 (+WN). Austin has the international flights due to the tech companies, etc.

Hell, up in OKC, I'd LOVE to have the traffic and flight opportunities that SAT has...

Stealing this from another thread:

http://www.anna.aero/2017/09/13/kansas- ... om-europe/

SAT<->Europe is about 127 PDEW (~95k/12 mos). Meanwhile, AUS was about 260 PDEW (~190k/12 months total) before BA started the flight, and the like of BNA or IND that just got a TATL flight is in ~200 PDEW (~150k/12 mo) range.

Domestically, SAT does have a few holes (Mostly in Midwest, and of course, BOS), but is otherwise good enough for a city of its size. The northern part of San Antonio Metro Area can always drive up to AUS if they wish, also (Although, yes, I-35 does suck. I know, I used to drive between San Antonio and Austin all the time).

SAT is heavy on low yielding tourism traffic, military traffic, and as mentioned skewed to Mexico for international service. Also, DFW (and DAL) and IAH (and HOU) are big hubs not that far away.

Austin benefits with the state government, booming tech sector, and draw of that big university, among others.

SAT is forever be in the shadow of AUS, and a little further out DFW and IAH. They have the daily flight to YYZ, and several flights to Mexico. I don't think they'll ever see any Europe/Pacific service. AV to SAL maybe, but I think that's a stretch.

formeraa wrote:

It's all about economics and demographics!

Outside of factors like having a major tourist draw such as a theme park, travel demand and consumer travel propensity in a city are very much directly related to local economic factors and population demographics.

A city with only a modest business base and populous with only average income will produce lower travel demand than a comparable city with a more vibrant and broader business base along with a more affluent population.

For comparison, San Antonio ranks 126th on list of US MSA's in household median income, while Austin ranks 18th. Comparing per capita income, its nearly identical story.

So simply put, the money and demand is in AUS, not SAT.

LAXintl wrote:

formeraa wrote:

It's all about economics and demographics!

Outside of factors like having a major tourist draw such as a theme park, travel demand and consumer travel propensity in a city are very much directly related to local economic factors and population demographics.

A city with only a modest business base and populous with only average income will produce lower travel demand than a comparable city with a more vibrant and broader business base along with a more affluent population.

For comparison, San Antonio ranks 126th on list of US MSA's in household median income, while Austin ranks 18th. Comparing per capita income, its nearly identical story.

So simply put, the money and demand is in AUS, not SAT.

AT&T moved its HQ to Dallas (after moved to San Antonio from St. Louis) in part because of transportation (and Dallas is the Telecom capitol of North America).

Even NK tried SAT and failed.. that says a lot!

SAT could get a transatlantic flight someday, but until then I'm glad SAT has YYZ. I think all the decently-sized U.S. cities should have some sort of flight to Canada to allow for connections to international destinations. For example, one can connect from SAT to BOM via YYZ, not possible before.

Meanwhile in GRR, the second biggest city in Michigan, everyone drives south to ORD or east to YYZ cause GRR doesn't have a flight to YYZ anymore.

CHI2DFW wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

formeraa wrote:

It's all about economics and demographics!

Outside of factors like having a major tourist draw such as a theme park, travel demand and consumer travel propensity in a city are very much directly related to local economic factors and population demographics.

A city with only a modest business base and populous with only average income will produce lower travel demand than a comparable city with a more vibrant and broader business base along with a more affluent population.

For comparison, San Antonio ranks 126th on list of US MSA's in household median income, while Austin ranks 18th. Comparing per capita income, its nearly identical story.

So simply put, the money and demand is in AUS, not SAT.

AT&T moved its HQ to Dallas (after moved to San Antonio from St. Louis) in part because of transportation (and Dallas is the Telecom capitol of North America).

Pretty sure AT&T still has a pretty large footprint in SAT. I do believe Dallas and Atlanta are larger though.

I'm surprised that the runways have not been mentioned. The longest runway at SAT is 8500 feet, while AUS has a 12,500 foot main runway, and as AUS was a military field for a long time with heavier aircraft before being converted to a civilian airfield, that runway is stronger. Hence, the long-haul flights will go to AUS rather than SAT. AUS has the longest runway of civilian airports in Texas excluding the 13,400-foot runways at DFW.

Randomly saw this article from 2 years back:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/col ... 802949.php

Pretty much sums up most of the replies .

But seriously, if one compare SAT to, let say, CMH or IND, it's seriously not THAT bad. Yes, IND will have a TATL flight, but other than that, IND didn't even have a direct SFO flight until like 2 years ago.

Other than that, SAT will definitely has its turn, when Austin run out of room to grow and houses get way too expensive, then you'll start seeing people moving Southward, eventually to San Antonio. Of course, that's probably another 10 years.

zakuivcustom wrote:

Randomly saw this article from 2 years back:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/col ... 802949.php

Pretty much sums up most of the replies .

But seriously, if one compare SAT to, let say, CMH or IND, it's seriously not THAT bad. Yes, IND will have a TATL flight, but other than that, IND didn't even have a direct SFO flight until like 2 years ago.

Other than that, SAT will definitely has its turn, when Austin run out of room to grow and houses get way too expensive, then you'll start seeing people moving Southward, eventually to San Antonio. Of course, that's probably another 10 years.

The 12/30 runway pair will need to be extended to at least 10,000 feet.

Money is in AUS also BA just said they will fly the 747 in Spring & Summer 18

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I'm surprised that the runways have not been mentioned. The longest runway at SAT is 8500 feet, while AUS has a 12,500 foot main runway, and as AUS was a military field for a long time with heavier aircraft before being converted to a civilian airfield, that runway is stronger. Hence, the long-haul flights will go to AUS rather than SAT. AUS has the longest runway of civilian airports in Texas excluding the 13,400-foot runways at DFW.

Nah, has zero to do with it.

I love San Antonio, probably more than I love Austin. It just has such a chill vibe. I'd love to see SAT get a TATL flight, but at the same time I like it the way it is, a sort of hidden gem from the rest of the world.

TWA772LR wrote:

I love San Antonio, probably more than I love Austin. It just has such a chill vibe.

That makes 2 of us.

AT&T was HQd in a stunning skyscraper at 550 Madison Ave for years. HQ moves are about costs and logistics not city viability.

San Antonio suffers from close proximity to AUS. AUS being a hip, chic, and growing city.

zakuivcustom wrote:

But seriously, if one compare SAT to, let say, CMH or IND, it's seriously not THAT bad. Yes, IND will have a TATL flight, but other than that, IND didn't even have a direct SFO flight until like 2 years ago.

Sorry for this diversion, but....

Why did you feel the need to put down IND?

If you want to talk about service to SFO, looking at Sept 26th IND has 3 daily mainlines to SFO while SAT has one daily RJ, so I can't find a reason you chose to bring up SFO service from IND.... Also, Airtran, NWA, and ATA had non-stops from IND to the bay area before, so that isn't true either

Since you felt the need to bring in IND.... You will see local O&D is growing 2x faster at IND than SAT, and almost 3x faster at AUS over SAT

aemoreira1981 wrote:

I'm surprised that the runways have not been mentioned. The longest runway at SAT is 8500 feet, while AUS has a 12,500 foot main runway, and as AUS was a military field for a long time with heavier aircraft before being converted to a civilian airfield, that runway is stronger. Hence, the long-haul flights will go to AUS rather than SAT. AUS has the longest runway of civilian airports in Texas excluding the 13,400-foot runways at DFW.

It hasn't been mentioned, because it doesn't mean much of anything.

8500ft is more than long enough for a 787/777 doing Texas Europe.

BA does MSY-LHR off of Rwy02/20 all the time, and it's only 7000ft.

Midwestindy wrote:

Since you felt the need to bring in IND.... You will see local O&D is growing 2x faster at IND than SAT, and almost 3x faster at AUS over SAT

Ofcourse, the local O&D at AUS will grow 3x more than SAT. There are 10 daily non stops from AUS to the Bay Area compared to 1 RJ from SAT !!!

TransWorldOne wrote:

San Antonio, Texas is the 24th most populous metropolitan area in the United States. It is larger than Portland, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Nashville, and its nearby neighbor, Austin. Yet despite its size and being a growing city, SAT has relatively limited air service. Besides having a handful of flights to Mexico and new service to YYZ, SAT has no international service. Can anyone provide any insight as to why SAT has such limited air service for a city its size? It's a lovely city with many tourist attractions. When will we see SAT experience explosive growth like AUS just up the road? Will SAT get a transoceanic flight? Or is AUS bound to become the primary international airport for South central Texas?

The city officials have for long chased misguided priorities. They keep begging NFL and MLB teams to come to SA. I don't ever see AUS officials chase such goals. For years they relied too much on Military/ Tourism and slept on new business development. They failed to bring high tech and management jobs to the city while dreaming about how Disney will eventually come to SA one day! Also, despite the obvious lack of flights the city and the airport officials haven't really made it a serious priority to offer incentives for airlines to start new routes.

However, there are a few things going well for SA. The economy is very diverse. It is a great place for families to raise kids. The housing market is holding pretty well. The new projects coming up in downtown SA are actually very nice. The city has good potential in Defense, Cyber security, Bio medical Sciences and Healthcare. The city has to work hard on bringing in some marquee companies and may be another manufacturing plant to the city to kick start the air-service development. The airport officials meanwhile should earn their pay by getting new/additional flights to NYC, BOS, SFO and South Florida to start with. Europe is still far far away. It would be great, if the city can land some connectivity to San Salvador, San Luis Potosi, Leon and another flight to Guadalajara within a year or two.

SATexan wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

Since you felt the need to bring in IND.... You will see local O&D is growing 2x faster at IND than SAT, and almost 3x faster at AUS over SAT

Of course, the local O&D at AUS will grow 3x more than SAT. There are 10 daily non stops from AUS to the Bay Area compared to 1 RJ from SAT !!!

There are 10 daily non stops from AUS to the Bay Area, because the market(especially the tech sector) is growing much faster in AUS than at SAT...
And IND and AUS are in the top 5 fastest growing tech centers in the country(5th and 3rd respectively), so it makes sense that both these cities would have more service to SFO/Bay Area than SAT....

Midwestindy wrote:

Since you felt the need to bring in IND.... You will see local O&D is growing 2x faster at IND than SAT, and almost 3x faster at AUS over SAT

I was going to say Midwestindy, you need to be fair (fare) and look at fare trends (not just 1Q, which is distorted by SXSW). I had it in my mind that SAT airfares had increased quite a bit over AUS, whereas a decade ago the opposite used to be the case and SAT was the busier airport.

And I was wrong. They're essentially the same, right around $200 each way, same for IND. Sad for SAT.

SATexan wrote:

Ofcourse, the local O&D at AUS will grow 3x more than SAT. There are 10 daily non stops from AUS to the Bay Area compared to 1 RJ from SAT !!!

By the same token, the above is wrong, as Midwestindy alluded to.

For CY 2016, passengers per day each way and average fare to SFO, OAK, and SJC:

AUS: 974 / $207 (AUS is now 90% the size of Houston-Bay Area markets)
SAT: 238 / $208

Maybe you could get more passengers at the margin (say 10-25%, but I doubt any more than that) with more nonstops, without having to lower fares.

Midwestindy wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

But seriously, if one compare SAT to, let say, CMH or IND, it's seriously not THAT bad. Yes, IND will have a TATL flight, but other than that, IND didn't even have a direct SFO flight until like 2 years ago.

Sorry for this diversion, but....

Why did you feel the need to put down IND?

If you want to talk about service to SFO, looking at Sept 26th IND has 3 daily mainlines to SFO while SAT has one daily RJ, so I can't find a reason you chose to bring up SFO service from IND.... Also, Airtran, NWA, and ATA had non-stops from IND to the bay area before, so that isn't true either

Since you felt the need to bring in IND.... You will see local O&D is growing 2x faster at IND than SAT, and almost 3x faster at AUS over SAT

I was only using IND as an example since I use that airport all the time :p. Personally I found the size of Indy and SA comparable, then there's the fact that IND is closer to two fairly big hub (ORD and DTW) while SAT is close to two fairly big hub (DFW and IAH).

I know, it's not the perfect comparison (Economy are different, with SA has a much larger military presence; tourism are different, with San Antonio more of a "in-state" destination, but year round, vs Indy being a nation-wide destination, but only for a few days (Indy 500, Gencon, etc.); of course, you don't have anything close to Austin within 2 hours drive from Indy...well, maybe pre-dehub CVG airport-wise).

My whole point is, sure, SAT can use a LOT more flight to Bay Area or NYC (seriously, I didn't realize how bad it is until I search and realized that there are only 2 grand total daily flight from NYC to SAT, vs 10 to AUS), but in terms of number of destinations (or the number of holes) it's not in that bad of a shape.

My point is that 10 daily non stops out of AUS stimulate a lot more O&D demand as opposed to a single daily RJ from SAT to the Bay Area. It's not that complicated! Hence it is no surprise that Austin's O&D is growing three times faster to the Bay Area than SAT.

Besides, when AUS airport has ten daily flights spread out through out the day there is a good chance that a significant amount of SAT-Bay area traffic is actually leaking into the AUS airport and you can bet that is the case. Personally, I fly out more from AUS these days.

Austin's explosive growth not withstanding it remains a fact that SAT is underserved from certain areas: NYC, Bay Area, South Florida, Boston etc. The city and airport officials have to be more pro active in seeking services. Right now they aren't doing anything but watch SAT domestic and international traffic leak to AUS and IAH while Mexico bound traffic typically leaks to Greyhound and Turimex bus services.

SATexan wrote:

My point is that 10 daily non stops out of AUS stimulate a lot more O&D demand as opposed to a single daily RJ from SAT to the Bay Area. It's not that complicated! Hence it is no surprise that Austin's O&D is growing three times faster to the Bay Area than SAT.

Besides, when AUS airport has ten daily flights spread out through out the day there ais a good chance that a significant amount of SAT-Bay area traffic is actually leaking into the AUS airport and you can bet that is the case. Personally, I fly out more from AUS these days.

Austin's explosive growth not withstanding it remains a fact that SAT is underserved from certain areas: NYC, Bay Area, South Florida, Boston etc. The city and airport officials have to be more pro active in seeking services. Right now they aren't doing anything but watch SAT domestic and international traffic leak to AUS and IAH whileMexico bound traffic typically leaks to Greyhound and Turimex bus services.

First off, then numbers MidwestIndy posted were total O&D--take a look.

Second, travel is a derived demand. People don't fly more just because there are more nonstopis flights at the same price point--at the margins, sure, but not as a general rule. If anything, they'll substitute one destination for another (e.g., SF instead of LA) for leisure travel.

Pretty simple concept.

Dwelling in the past here but in the late '80s when Austin's old Mueller airport was beginning to burst at the seams was the time when the two cities (Austin and San Antonio) could've planned to build one large metro airport between the two somewhere along I-35. It was a much faster, easier, cheaper option for Aus to decomission Bergstrom AFB and turn it into an int'l airport though. If the two cities had built one large metro airport, I think it would've seen all kinds of int'l service from Central and South America and Europe. Think Lan, Copa, Tam, avianca, etc

TransWorldOne wrote:

San Antonio, Texas is the 24th most populous metropolitan area in the United States. It is larger than Portland, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Nashville, and its nearby neighbor, Austin. Yet despite its size and being a growing city, SAT has relatively limited air service. You hardly ever hear of SAT as being a contender for a European flight despite being bigger than the aforementioned cities. Besides having a handful of flights to Mexico and new service to YYZ, SAT has no international service. SAT doesn't even have a flight to BOS. JFK service is limited with just a single dailly flight on DL. Can anyone provide any insight as to why SAT has such limited air service for a city its size? It's a lovely city with many tourist attractions. When will we see SAT experience explosive growth like AUS just up the road? Will SAT get a transoceanic flight? Or is AUS bound to become the primary international airport for South central Texas?

Cleveland has 500k+ more people if you include Akron which the census does for it's CSA.

CHI2DFW wrote:

AT&T moved its HQ to Dallas (after moved to San Antonio from St. Louis) in part because of transportation (and Dallas is the Telecom capitol of North America).

As did La Quinta's corporate office around the year 2000 FWIW


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

N626AA wrote:

Dwelling in the past here but in the late '80s when Austin's old Mueller airport was beginning to burst at the seams was the time when the two cities (Austin and San Antonio) could've planned to build one large metro airport between the two somewhere along I-35. It was a much faster, easier, cheaper option for Aus to decomission Bergstrom AFB and turn it into an int'l airport though. If the two cities had built one large metro airport, I think it would've seen all kinds of int'l service from Central and South America and Europe. Think Lan, Copa, Tam, avianca, etc

I can tell you that Southwest would've been vociferously against such a plan.

Regardless, I don't think you're right on it doing much for international demand. Neither Austin nor San Antonio are diverse migration magnets like DFW or Houston. Few cities are. Maybe one day.

jetero wrote:

N626AA wrote:

Dwelling in the past here but in the late '80s when Austin's old Mueller airport was beginning to burst at the seams was the time when the two cities (Austin and San Antonio) could've planned to build one large metro airport between the two somewhere along I-35. It was a much faster, easier, cheaper option for Aus to decomission Bergstrom AFB and turn it into an int'l airport though. If the two cities had built one large metro airport, I think it would've seen all kinds of int'l service from Central and South America and Europe. Think Lan, Copa, Tam, avianca, etc

I can tell you that Southwest would've been vociferously against such a plan.

Regardless, I don't think you're right on it doing much for international demand. Neither Austin nor San Antonio are diverse migration magnets like DFW or Houston. Few cities are. Maybe one day.

Good points, was just letting my imagination get carried away. But why do you suppose WN would've been against it? Loss of revenue, or market share?

jetero wrote:

Second, travel is a derived demand. People don't fly more just because there are more nonstopis flights at the same price point--at the margins, sure, but not as a general rule. If anything, they'll substitute one destination for another (e.g., SF instead of LA) for leisure travel.
Pretty simple concept.

There is a thread about BA's flight to AUS getting upgraded to a 744. How do you explain this capacity increase if there wasn't a market stimulation as a result of non stop flight?

N626AA wrote:

jetero wrote:

N626AA wrote:

Dwelling in the past here but in the late '80s when Austin's old Mueller airport was beginning to burst at the seams was the time when the two cities (Austin and San Antonio) could've planned to build one large metro airport between the two somewhere along I-35. It was a much faster, easier, cheaper option for Aus to decomission Bergstrom AFB and turn it into an int'l airport though. If the two cities had built one large metro airport, I think it would've seen all kinds of int'l service from Central and South America and Europe. Think Lan, Copa, Tam, avianca, etc

I can tell you that Southwest would've been vociferously against such a plan.

Regardless, I don't think you're right on it doing much for international demand. Neither Austin nor San Antonio are diverse migration magnets like DFW or Houston. Few cities are. Maybe one day.

Good points, was just letting my imagination get carried away. But why do you suppose WN would've been against it? Loss of revenue, or market share?

Because in the 1990s when ABIA was planned (and this is a pure guess, but I don't think too far off), the Texas Triangle + AUS probably still accounted for 10% of WN's revenues. If people from SAT and AUS had to drive an hour to catch a flight to Houston or Dallas, I think they would've just kept on driving.

Of course it doesn't necessarily matter now since short-haul died after 9/11. Fares on HOU-DAL are just outrageous. I'm sure it's the same AUS and SAT-DAL.

SATexan wrote:

jetero wrote:

Second, travel is a derived demand. People don't fly more just because there are more nonstopis flights at the same price point--at the margins, sure, but not as a general rule. If anything, they'll substitute one destination for another (e.g., SF instead of LA) for leisure travel.
Pretty simple concept.

There is a thread about BA's flight to AUS getting upgraded to a 744. How do you explain this capacity increase if there wasn't a market stimulation as a result of non stop flight?

Long-haul markets are a bit of a different game, but it's not like people who wanted to go from AUS to Europe and beyond weren't doing it before. They just weren't doing it over London. Reduce travel costs (which include time), and it does stimulate the market. But SA to SF being stimulated in the absence of substantially cheaper fares? That's a bit of a stretch.

Explain to me your theory of why if there were suddenly 10 nonstops from SAT to SFO at the same fare why large numbers of people would all of a sudden just decide to go to SF more times per year than they were already planning to (and still go to LA, Seattle, wherever else they were going to go so that it was purely additive and "stimulative" and not a net-net zero). Surely you agree that doesn't make much sense.

Suggest you look up "derived demand" (which air travel is):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derived_demand

I'm sorry if you find it upsetting that SAT is just not as good of a market as AUS. AUS is just in the middle of one of the nation's biggest bubbles right now and has developed quite a large inbound tourism market. I personally don't get it--I find Austin tremendously overrated, but I'm admittedly a bit of a contrarian. I (and others above) have posted our preferences when it comes to Austin versus San Antonio and San Antonio wins hands down. I'm sure others say the opposite. And there are probably more in the latter camp.

If it's any consolation, I live to the east on I-10 in Houston--it's the same story. The Houston MSA is about 90% the size of the DFW MSA. The market from Houston to SF is like 60% of what DFW to SF is. Now in that case, there are substantial differences in average fares, with Houston-SF being about a third higher than Dallas, but even if that were "equalized," DFW would still be a much larger O&D market to SF as well as almost any domestic market than Houston--it's just the way the travel patterns work out of the two cities. (Internationally it's a much different story.)

So best to just get over it. It's not a knock on San Antonio as a city.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

SATexan wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

Since you felt the need to bring in IND.... You will see local O&D is growing 2x faster at IND than SAT, and almost 3x faster at AUS over SAT

Ofcourse, the local O&D at AUS will grow 3x more than SAT. There are 10 daily non stops from AUS to the Bay Area compared to 1 RJ from SAT !!!

TransWorldOne wrote:

San Antonio, Texas is the 24th most populous metropolitan area in the United States. It is larger than Portland, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Nashville, and its nearby neighbor, Austin. Yet despite its size and being a growing city, SAT has relatively limited air service. Besides having a handful of flights to Mexico and new service to YYZ, SAT has no international service. Can anyone provide any insight as to why SAT has such limited air service for a city its size? It's a lovely city with many tourist attractions. When will we see SAT experience explosive growth like AUS just up the road? Will SAT get a transoceanic flight? Or is AUS bound to become the primary international airport for South central Texas?

The city officials have for long chased misguided priorities. They keep begging NFL and MLB teams to come to SA. I don't ever see AUS officials chase such goals. For years they relied too much on Military/ Tourism and slept on new business development. They failed to bring high tech and management jobs to the city while dreaming about how Disney will eventually come to SA one day! Also, despite the obvious lack of flights the city and the airport officials haven't really made it a serious priority to offer incentives for airlines to start new routes.

However, there are a few things going well for SA. The economy is very diverse. It is a great place for families to raise kids. The housing market is holding pretty well. The new projects coming up in downtown SA are actually very nice. The city has good potential in Defense, Cyber security, Bio medical Sciences and Healthcare. The city has to work hard on bringing in some marquee companies and may be another manufacturing plant to the city to kick start the air-service development. The airport officials meanwhile should earn their pay by getting new/additional flights to NYC, BOS, SFO and South Florida to start with. Europe is still far far away. It would be great, if the city can land some connectivity to San Salvador, San Luis Potosi, Leon and another flight to Guadalajara within a year or two.

Why would Austin want an NFL or major league baseball team? They have the University of Texas which has very strong division I football and baseball programs.

I'm sure plenty of Austinites if they had their druthers would be perfectly happy to have an NFL and MLB team. Kind of a dumb statement if you ask me. I think you're really trying to say the other way around--why would a professional sports league choose Austin when there is already a well-ingrained collegiate sports infrastructure there. (Although there are plenty of cities that have both.)

(Who watches college baseball anyway?! I'm sure average attendance for the Express is higher than for the Longhorns.)

jetero wrote:

Second, travel is a derived demand. People don't fly more just because there are more nonstopis flights at the same price point--at the margins, sure, but not as a general rule. If anything, they'll substitute one destination for another (e.g., SF instead of LA) for leisure travel.

Pretty simple concept.

I'm not sure what you mean by more nonstop flights at the same price point-at the margins, unless an example is something like a hub carrier adding an additional nonstop frequency on a route it has a monopoly, and just passing through more connections over it to fill seats and make it viable. Then price point (or average fare) can remain the same for the O&D that take the nonstop.

If the addition of nonstops are added from a competitor to an established carrier (especially an LCC or ULCC), fares will become competitive in the market. Pax take advantage of the low fares and then fly more often between the city pairs and there is the increase of demand. A good example is Atlanta to the Northeast. A reasonable two hour flight. With the LCC/ULCC stimulation, more pax can fly back and forth, increase visits to meet friends/family, for example once every two or three weeks instead of once every six months.

phluser wrote:

jetero wrote:

Second, travel is a derived demand. People don't fly more just because there are more nonstopis flights at the same price point--at the margins, sure, but not as a general rule. If anything, they'll substitute one destination for another (e.g., SF instead of LA) for leisure travel.

Pretty simple concept.

I'm not sure what you mean by more nonstop flights at the same price point-at the margins, unless an example is something like a hub carrier adding an additional nonstop frequency on a route it has a monopoly, and just passing through more connections over it to fill seats and make it viable. Then price point (or average fare) can remain the same for the O&D that take the nonstop.

If the addition of nonstops are added from a competitor to an established carrier (especially an LCC or ULCC), fares will become competitive in the market. Pax take advantage of the low fares and then fly more often between the city pairs and there is the increase of demand. A good example is Atlanta to the Northeast. A reasonable two hour flight. With the LCC/ULCC stimulation, more pax can fly back and forth, increase visits to meet friends/family, for example once every two or three weeks instead of once every six months.

That's not what he's saying, though, phluser. He clearly is saying SAT-SFO would be stimulated solely if it had more flights. What you're saying is completely different. Sure, supply increases and fares drop, the market is stimulated. But, as written above, the average O&D fares from SAT and AUS to the Bay Area are essentially the same. So if you have to drop fares to stimulate the market from SAT, SAT is obviously a worse market for airlines than AUS. It really is that simple.

I have a feeling the AUS market has a better demand response, too.

Incidentally, PHL is (generally, not for all markets) another poor demand response market like Houston and SAT as explained above.

I'm sure plenty of Austinites if they had their druthers would be perfectly happy to have an NFL and MLB team. Kind of a dumb statement if you ask me. I think you're really trying to say the other way around--why would a professional sports league choose Austin when there is already a well-ingrained collegiate sports infrastructure there. (Although there are plenty of cities that have both.)

(Who watches college baseball anyway?! I'm sure average attendance for the Express is higher than for the Longhorns.)

The forever debate of an NFL team in the area. I guess a team for both San Antonio and Austin would work. But nowhere for such a team to play, though.

I'm sorry if you find it upsetting that SAT is just not as good of a market as AUS. AUS is just in the middle of one of the nation's biggest bubbles right now and has developed quite a large inbound tourism market. I personally don't get it--I find Austin tremendously overrated, but I'm admittedly a bit of a contrarian. I (and others above) have posted our preferences when it comes to Austin versus San Antonio and San Antonio wins hands down. I'm sure others say the opposite. And there are probably more in the latter camp.

For me, Austin is better than San Antonio, but Austin is definitely way overrated and overhyped. Not to mention, Austin traffic is just god awful (was bad 10 years ago before the recent bubble growth, can't imagined how bad it is now).

Regardless, I don't think you're right on it doing much for international demand. Neither Austin nor San Antonio are diverse migration magnets like DFW or Houston. Few cities are. Maybe one day.

Well, both DFW metroplex and Houston are ~7M people big, while Austin, despite the recent bubble growth, is maybe around 2M people (San Antonio is similar, staying a little bit bigger than Austin for now). Even assuming, let say, both Houston/DFW and San Antonio/Austin each having 20% international migrants, the demand is still a lot smaller just b/c of the smaller population size.

Even with a megalopolitan (is that even a word?) airport that serves both SA and Austin, you're still only talking about maybe 4.5M people. So maybe international traffic amount that's similar to SEA (Before DL's attempt to turn it into a TPAC hub), but would still lag behind IAH/DFW by miles.

zakuivcustom wrote:

Well, both DFW metroplex and Houston are ~7M people big, while Austin, despite the recent bubble growth, is maybe around 2M people (San Antonio is similar, staying a little bit bigger than Austin for now). Even assuming, let say, both Houston/DFW and San Antonio/Austin each having 20% international migrants, the demand is still a lot smaller just b/c of the smaller population size.

Even with a megalopolitan (is that even a word?) airport that serves both SA and Austin, you're still only talking about maybe 4.5M people. So maybe international traffic amount that's similar to SEA (Before DL's attempt to turn it into a TPAC hub), but would still lag behind IAH/DFW by miles.

I'd say PHX would be a better hypothetical comparison.

(Crazy to see that Denver MSA population is only 2.8 million, just ~15% higher than San Antonio.)

That's just it. Not only airlines compete but also airports. You can bet many people from SAT drive to AUS & fly out.

Well, rumors have been floating around that NK is going to announce 2 or 3 new cities by the end of the year. A few new aircraft coming to the fleet and SAT is one of those cities heavily rumored. It would be a great addition to the NK network as NK flew it years ago.

Not as breathtaking as other airlines, but growth is growth I guess.

jetero wrote:

He clearly is saying SAT-SFO would be stimulated solely if it had more flights. What you're saying is completely different. Sure, supply increases and fares drop, the market is stimulated. But, as written above, the average O&D fares from SAT and AUS to the Bay Area are essentially the same. So if you have to drop fares to stimulate the market from SAT, SAT is obviously a worse market for airlines than AUS. It really is that simple.

Right now, most of the SAT-SFO demand flows through 1 stop connections due to lack of non stops. The non stop options command more premium than a 1 stop option. No?

jetero wrote:

Explain to me your theory of why if there were suddenly 10 nonstops from SAT to SFO at the same fare why large numbers of people would all of a sudden just decide to go to SF more times per year than they were already planning to (and still go to LA, Seattle, wherever else they were going to go so that it was purely additive and "stimulative" and not a net-net zero). Surely you agree that doesn't make much sense.
.

Jetero, for some reason you seem to think that I have some beef against AUS airport even though I practically live in both places and use both airports as needed. So let's try a different city pair. I'll use Pittsburgh for example. 2016 Q4 data suggests that fares from PIT to SFO is $335 and the O&D was 265 PDEW. PIT-SFO has only one daily non stop on UA. When you have only one flight the significant majority of traffic flows through connections or leaks to other neighboring airports. This ends up diluting the fares on that route. If the market had additional non stop options then there would be a chance to keep the premium, stop the leaks to neighboring airports, stimulate additional demand and as a net result you will see the O&D rise.

For the record, AUS-SFO was 915 PDEW and fare was $264. For a market that is only 3.5 times more than PIT and fare data being 70$ lower, AUS has 10 times more service than PIT. How do you explain that using your theory?

Also, how do you think PIT will fare with regard to AUS in terms of O&D to the Bay area if the present circumstance of 1 daily flight continues for a year or two while AUS continues to add additional flights even though the fare data is more favorable to PIT?

SATexan wrote:

jetero wrote:

He clearly is saying SAT-SFO would be stimulated solely if it had more flights. What you're saying is completely different. Sure, supply increases and fares drop, the market is stimulated. But, as written above, the average O&D fares from SAT and AUS to the Bay Area are essentially the same. So if you have to drop fares to stimulate the market from SAT, SAT is obviously a worse market for airlines than AUS. It really is that simple.

Right now, most of the SAT-SFO demand flows through 1 stop connections due to lack of non stops. The non stop options command more premium than a 1 stop option. No?

Sure.

jetero wrote:

Explain to me your theory of why if there were suddenly 10 nonstops from SAT to SFO at the same fare why large numbers of people would all of a sudden just decide to go to SF more times per year than they were already planning to (and still go to LA, Seattle, wherever else they were going to go so that it was purely additive and "stimulative" and not a net-net zero). Surely you agree that doesn't make much sense.
.

SATexan wrote:

Jetero, for some reason you seem to think that I have some beef against AUS airport even though I practically live in both places and use both airports as needed.

I find it very common for people's thoughts on here to be guided more by my-airport-versus-your-airport civic pride versus basic economic relationships, so yes, I detected that tone.

SATexan wrote:

So let's try a different city pair. I'll use Pittsburgh for example. 2016 Q4 data suggests that fares from PIT to SFO is $335 and the O&D was 265 PDEW. PIT-SFO has only one daily non stop on UA. When you have only one flight the significant majority of traffic flows through connections or leaks to other neighboring airports. This ends up diluting the fares on that route. If the market had additional non stop options then there would be a chance to keep the premium, stop the leaks to neighboring airports, stimulate additional demand and as a net result you will see the O&D rise.

OK, so average fares are diluted when people connect.

Agree.

If there are more nonstops then the average fare would rise.

Not necessarily (certainly not in the case of new-entrant competition), but I can follow your argument in theory (say, if UA added another flight). The idea of "stimulating" through more nonstop service (just because the nonstop was there) would be counterbalanced, however, by whatever higher fares are charged as a result (if they are indeed higher).

SATexan wrote:

For the record, AUS-SFO was 915 PDEW and fare was $264. For a market that is only 3.5 times more than PIT and fare data being 70$ lower, AUS has 10 times more service than PIT. How do you explain that using your theory? Also, how do you think PIT will fare with regard to AUS in terms of O&D to the Bay area if the present circumstance of 1 daily flight continues for a year or two while AUS continues to add additional flights even though the fare data is more favorable to PIT?

I really don't understand what you're trying to say, and in any case I think you're wrong. In the example you cite for PIT, the yield is actually lower than for AUS (14.9 cents versus 17.6 cents). AUS is better from the airline perspective. You seem to think it's because the average fare is weighted more heavily towards the nonstop, which would be true, but the average fare for PIT-SFO nonstop i 2016 was $159 versus $162 for the AUS-SFO nonstop). AUS also only has 5.5 times the amount of service (seats), not 10.

The recurring them I hear is that, if SAT had more nonstop service to SFO, O&D on that route would grow faster. That's true, but I don't think it's anywhere near the degree that you seem to think it is. I ask you again, "If there were 10 nonstops per day from SAT to SFO, why would demand increase proportionally at the same price point?"

Also, to reiterate, the data Midwestindy cited was TOTAL O&D from AUS, IND, and SAT, not just SAT-SFO.

So, again, I'm really at a loss as to your point.

I think you're conflating O&D demand versus onboard passengers on a given route.

Would more people fly nonstop from SAT to SFO if the option existed versus connecting elsewhere? Absolutely. Will the size of the local market increase? Not really (net positive for the SAT market as a whole, taking into account the substitution effect), if price is held constant.

One thing I'm sorta surprised by, is the absence of COPA in either market.

IINM, all of their service is to FAA large-hubs, with the glaring exception of MSY, their only medium US market.

But they've been there for a while, and appear to be doing just fine, so I'm surprised that they haven't expanded other medium markets... either SAT and/or AUS would seem to be the obvious choices.

I would wonder what Latin connections SAT has beyond Mexico, but who knows.

LAX772LR wrote:

One thing I'm sorta surprised by, is the absence of COPA in either market.

IINM, all of their service is to FAA large-hubs, with the glaring exception of MSY, their only medium US market.

But they've been there for a while, and appear to be doing just fine, so I'm surprised that they haven't expanded other medium markets... either SAT and/or AUS would seem to be the obvious choices.

I would wonder what Latin connections SAT has beyond Mexico, but who knows.

145 PPDEW AUS-Central and South America
91 SAT

Definitely more than I would've thought.

jetero wrote:

145 PPDEW AUS-Central and South America
91 SAT

Interesting. What is the source/time frame for those figures?

LAX772LR wrote:

jetero wrote:

145 PPDEW AUS-Central and South America
91 SAT

Interesting. What is the source/time frame for those figures?

2016 Diio