PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

The A340-300 looks like an original DC-8 while the A340-600 - stretched by nearly 40 feet - while the -600 looks like an even-further-stretched DC-8-73!! In fact, it held the record as the longest passenger airplane in the world for a while, until the 747-8 arrived.

I've seen those long skinny A346s, I've been trying to look up aircraft lengths, how much longer is an A346 compared to a 77W?

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

The A340-300 looks like an original DC-8 while the A340-600 - stretched by nearly 40 feet - while the -600 looks like an even-further-stretched DC-8-73!! In fact, it held the record as the longest passenger airplane in the world for a while, until the 747-8 arrived.

I've seen those long skinny A346s, I've been trying to look up aircraft lengths, how much longer is an A346 compared to a 77W?

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

What about Delta on CDG or AMS?

Very good question! If I have been keeping up with this business correctly through a.net and my other sources, the main reason it is British Airways and Lufthansa/Edelweiss Air flying these routes is because of who the flights are primarily marketed for: Europeans. And unless there is a significant demand, most big international flights are based on the hub(s), not on a spoke. There are some exceptions: RDU to LHR is on AA, not BA - I believe that's been a contract thing for a while.

Similar to several months ago when the LH A340 was flying from FRA-SAN and suffered a birdstrike, and they subbed the A340 with an A330. Now we know the A330 has the legs to do FRA-SAN. It was interesting to see an LH A330 show up in SAN!

Yep! It's got the range both ways, but it's the take-off restrictions at SAN that limit the amount of cargo that can go into the belly of the A330 that restricts its usage. A plane has to be able to continue its take-off after V2 when an engine failure occurs, and it has to be able to circle around and return for a landing. Within North America, this isn't a problem for any plane; however, intercontinental flights were a problem for many years for SAN because of this - in fact, the 787 was designed to negate this obstacle, which is why JAL uses it for its Tokyo flights!

I'm imagining the scenario went like this after the bird strike: the LH dispatchers did some quick calculations and figured they could fit all the passengers on this A330, meaning there would be no re-routing of any passengers today. The cargo already loaded and ready to go to SAN would not hamper that A330's journey today, so at least on the Frankfurt end, the availability of an almost-identical plane meant a quick transfer and off it went!!

On the San Diego end, however, Lufthansa personnel very quickly were alerted, and preparations began for shifting some of the cargo, most probably on United flights to one or more of their hubs, to connect onto other Lufthansa flights to Frankfurt, reducing weight, and negating the need to have to re-route any passengers and their luggage. Alliances are wonderful things, aren't they?

That day was a Disaster for the LH team and the Star Alliance Partners at SAN. About 300 bags were left off because of that Downgauge. An A330-300 will not be feasible for LH at SAN. And the flights doing well. About 30 or so Connections per flight are transfers to LAX/SFO region. But J class is always full.

I read that SAN officials are not focusing on any more European carries to allow for the LH flight to become successful. I think that COPA to PTY is probably our next international carrier.

I’m excited for the a346! However, why isn’t a 747 an option like BA, are they full utilized?

According to CAPA, it’s seems SAN is set on Asia. With SJC recent loss, doesn’t that open up an available route to China? Still keeping fingers crossed on KE though and PR still seems likely.

gollumSD wrote:

I read that SAN officials are not focusing on any more European carries to allow for the LH flight to become successful. I think that COPA to PTY is probably our next international carrier.

Yeah I remember a couple of months ago they were in negotiations with COPA, but they hit a snag, I wonder what the progress is? I'd heard the airport officials were also trying to get another Asian flight too.

SANMAN66 wrote:

I've seen those long skinny A346s, I've been trying to look up aircraft lengths, how much longer is an A346 compared to a 77W?

http://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/A340-600/777-300ER/

I HIGHLY recommend this site - it's got great statistics!.

redrooster3 wrote:

That day was a Disaster for the LH team and the Star Alliance Partners at SAN. About 300 bags were left off because of that Downgauge. An A330-300 will not be feasible for LH at SAN. And the flights doing well. About 30 or so Connections per flight are transfers to LAX/SFO region. But J class is always full.

What's the saying? "The front 10% of the plane pays 90% of the cost of the flight?" There are only three conclusions I can logically arrive at when an airline such as British Airways upgrades our daily flight from/to London from the original 777-200 to a 747-400 alternating with a 777-300 (and also Lufthansa's recently announced upgauge on certain days!): (a) entirely demand for true F class, (b) entirely cargo (remember take-off restrictions in a 777 versus the 747!), or (c), a rise in both. I think the most logical answer is "c", and cattle class is simply along for the ride.

I salivate at the thought of a 747-8 substitution some day...and seeing it from Mr. A's.

gollumSD wrote:

I read that SAN officials are not focusing on any more European carries to allow for the LH flight to become successful. I think that COPA to PTY is probably our next international carrier.

I sit patiently in the lotus position, meditating on "good things come to those who wait". I have seen my now-hometown airport become a major international destination, and know that big changes are coming that will allow SAN to take its place among world cities. We went seven years without British Airways, and now eight years later we have added several more foreign carriers flying large airplanes very long distances! Building up service does need some time in between new service to solidify a market.

Now, here's a question: could COPA fly into TIJ instead? Certainly there would be no curfew issues, but is TIJ staffed for international flights 24/7? With Cross-Border-XPress available along with most probably lower costs, would COPA be able to market this?

Also MU has some 787 and a350 in the way..I can’t see how it won’t be possible as they are a ST contender. Their flights from LAX seem quite popular and they have 2 double daily 77w. They have a lot of connections intra-Asia via PVG.

redrooster3 wrote:

I salivate at the thought of a 747-8 substitution some day...and seeing it from Mr. A's.

Is a 747-8 feasible? I’ve never seen markings at SAn for them. Are there any? They’ve mark a35j etc.

smitty747 wrote:

Flightaware has loaded that the BA 744 will be operating in two days (Oct 16) on the LHR-SAN route. Do you think that is in error or is it a temporary substitute this week?

It very well could be that the BA 744 returns in two days, I was just giving a rough guess on when it returns.

It still seems surreal that you can now fly British Airways,Lufthansa,Japan,Edelweiss nonstop out of Lindbergh Field! For toppers, BA has the nonstop flight to LHR on a 747! I am ecstatic that LH will be bringing in the A346! Another "Big bus!" Not another boring A320 or A319!

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

What's the saying? "The front 10% of the plane pays 90% of the cost of the flight?" There are only three conclusions I can logically arrive at when an airline such as British Airways upgrades our daily flight from/to London from the original 777-200 to a 747-400 alternating with a 777-300 (and also Lufthansa's recently announced upgauge on certain days!): (a) entirely demand for true F class, (b) entirely cargo (remember take-off restrictions in a 777 versus the 747!), or (c), a rise in both. I think the most logical answer is "c", and cattle class is simply along for the ride.

Yes, I would go with "C" as well. Cargo is a very important factor. I've been surprised when I read how much int'l cargo is carried in and out of SAN. And as you say, I bet it's quite important in determining aircraft deployment -- there's got to be a crucial balance between premium pax, other pax, and freight.

gollumSD wrote:

I read that SAN officials are not focusing on any more European carries to allow for the LH flight to become successful. I think that COPA to PTY is probably our next international carrier.

I believe this is correct. Other Euro carriers have been discussed but I'm certain that SAN is not actively pursuing anything like that at this time. I think the incentive package for Int'l air service from SAN is not in play at this time for any Euro carrier. Of course any number of Euro cx might be interested in starting service here anyway and SDIA would not keep them out! Incentives for Asia and L. America - definitely in play.

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

Now, here's a question: could COPA fly into TIJ instead? Certainly there would be no curfew issues, but is TIJ staffed for international flights 24/7? With Cross-Border-XPress available along with most probably lower costs, would COPA be able to market this?

Shhhhhh! Why are you even suggesting that? You don't want more foreign flags at SAN? Our Route Development team (headed by one Hampton Brown) is working very hard to get COPA (or ?) to start flying to SAN, not 'SAN or TIJ - same diff'. Also, I believe somebody already flies from TIJ to C. America.

Remember, there is no curfew problem at SAN for arrivals, and the issue of staffing at the FIS at SDIA (for late night arrivals) should be taken care of by now -- that's the reason the negotiations with COPA broke off a year or so ago. That's been discussed on this thread in the past. I'm positive that SDIA and CM are working very hard now that these previous issues have been solved, to get service started between SAN & PTY as soon as possible! I would be very surprised if a carrier other than COPA would begin service at SAN from Latin America for a long time.

bb

COPA would make a fine addition! Their 737s can easily slip in and out between the big birds! Although I'd like to see more 787s!

http://enewspaper.sandiegouniontribune. ... 99994a9162
The linked article in this morning San Diego UT points out criticism regarding the rebuild and expansion of terminal 1 and the lack viable transportation plans to get to and leave the airport.
As a weekly user of the airport this time of year, it's already bad during peak travel banks. My experience every week is that traffic lights on Harbor Drive could be better synced by engineers for traffic flow. Lots of traffic gets stopped for just a couple of cars or shuttles exiting lots for the 6 traffic lights between Laurel St and the terminals. Another real aggravating light is the 3 left turn lanes on Harbor Dr going south, then left on Grape St. The pedestrian crossing Harbor at this intersection is on the south side and therefore, no conflict with airport traffic turning left (east) onto Grape St. Yet, even when a single pedestrian hits the crosswalk button, all traffic comes to a standstill for the allotted time to allow pedestrians to cross Harbor Dr. It doesn't take an engineer to figure this out, and would improve flow of airport traffic to get up the hill to I-5.
With the predicted increase in passenger traffic, the airport and the city need to come together to solve this, funding will be a major issue since FAA funding support doesn't include off airport property. An already traffic nightmare during heavy travel banks is only going to be more congested, think LAX!

757SanCam wrote:

The linked article in this morning San Diego UT points out criticism regarding the rebuild and expansion of terminal 1 and the lack viable transportation plans to get to and leave the airport.

Perhaps no one at the SD-UT has ever tried to fly WN in or out of SAN on a holiday weekend! Nobody who's ever done that would think twice about the need to rebuild T1, no matter what is involved!

To the best of my knowledge, a major component of airport redevelopment is a dedicated multi-lane roadway, on airport property, that will run parallel to Harbor Drive and is intended to carry only and all of the airport traffic, getting it entirely off Harbor Dr. Of course this access road will have to tie into Harbor at some point -- up near Laurel? -- as well as down at the west end of the airport I believe, which will be a bottleneck of sorts.

Was any of this mentioned in the article? That may not be planned until later in the entire ADP -- airport development plan - including the rebuild of T2E.

The ADP and all this terminal replacement stuff is available at SAN.org if anyone is interested.

I bet right about now a lot of San Diego leadership is starting to re-think the idea of moving SAN to the north (at Miramar) or somewhere, to get the airport out of the middle of downtown and out of the way of the tourist area along the water! I think we can expect to see some of that discussion to surface again, now that Lindbergh is handling over 22 million pax a year, and growing! I really wonder if very many people foresaw such growth and success at our little 663-acre airport? Yikes!

bb

Heads up! BA's Queen of the skies returns today to grace the San Diego skies again! According to Flightaware, she will be arriving late, at 8:28pm.

Welcome back, Your Royal Highness! We've missed you and are very happy you've returned to America's Finest City for another winter.

I keep wondering if/when we will see a dramatic change in BA's schedule at SAN? I remember talk at the time of the discussions about the need to build new and bigger FIS facilities at SDIA that one result might be the re-scheduling of BA's service to earlier in the day. It wasn't possible at the old FIS due to conflict with JL, etc., but it was something that the BA folks wanted to do at SAN.

I think it also was mentioned by someone that perhaps it would facilitate the use of the Queen (744) on a year round basis instead of only seasonally!

IMO, it's amazing to think that someday, we could see JL, BA and LH, plus who knows what else, at SAN at the same time! Yee haw, what a sight that would be!!!!

bb

Regarding a new Terminal 1, no one is denying that it is needed. In reading the UT article 3 times, there seems to be no solid consensus on a traffic solution to get people to and from the airport. There are only proposals, elevating Harbor Dr., (that still doesn't efficiently get traffic from I-5 to elevated Harbor Dr.) a elevated cable car from downtown, (time consuming, and where to park). Good luck getting people out of their cars. Until a reliable and fast public transportation system can be demonstrated to San Diegans, people will still want to take their own cars or an Uber/Lyft
.
Most traffic these days is from I-5 and I believe most people think with increased airport traffic, any solution must be agreed upon by airport authority, city, county and port of San Diego that is fast and efficient.

The article points out many problems including environmental impact reports and the fact that most passenger traffic emanates from WN and terminal 1. This has a direct impact on terminal 2 and international flights.

While there are proposals, cities, boards and the airport need to deal with Harbor Drive now. It's bad and only going to get worse. I pointed out in my previous post about syncing traffice lights between downtown and the airport. And for goodness sakes, the outbound traffic going south at Harbor and Grape St can be much much better by just fixing the pedestrian crossing at Harbor. The left turn signal should not be impacted by pedestrian crossing button for them to walk across Harbor Dr south of Grape St, stopping 3 lanes of traffic that have NO impact on them, safely crossing pedestrians across Harbor Dr.

Finally, let me say that I like the airport where it is (sorry OB and Pt Loma) but we need to look forward environmentally. Yeah, we've spent a boat load of money on the airport, but when will it be threated by rising oceans? Don't put you head in the sand and ignore this! According to science, rising sea levels could impact our little 663 acre airport in 20-40 years, we'll need the little Dutch boy to put his fingers in the holes in the dikes.

SANFan wrote:

IMO, it's amazing to think that someday, we could see JL, BA and LH, plus who knows what else, at SAN at the same time! Yee haw, what a sight that would be!!!!

bb

It sure would be a magnificent sight if LH upgraded to a 744 too. For years nobody thought a 747 flying nonstop overseas could be done out of Lindbergh Field. BA sure proved them wrong! Or when they grounded the 787, JAL responded by flying a 777 nonstop to Tokyo three times a week.As I was saying earlier, it seems surreal to see BA, LH, JL, WK flying nonstop from Lindbergh! BTW, I did a dummy booking and It looks like Edelweiss will be back next year!

757SanCam wrote:

http://enewspaper.sandiegouniontribune.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=cb09b5ae-b450-446b-a55e-af99994a9162
The linked article in this morning San Diego UT points out criticism regarding the rebuild and expansion of terminal 1 and the lack viable transportation plans to get to and leave the airport.
As a weekly user of the airport this time of year, it's already bad during peak travel banks. My experience every week is that traffic lights on Harbor Drive could be better synced by engineers for traffic flow. Lots of traffic gets stopped for just a couple of cars or shuttles exiting lots for the 6 traffic lights between Laurel St and the terminals. Another real aggravating light is the 3 left turn lanes on Harbor Dr going south, then left on Grape St. The pedestrian crossing Harbor at this intersection is on the south side and therefore, no conflict with airport traffic turning left (east) onto Grape St. Yet, even when a single pedestrian hits the crosswalk button, all traffic comes to a standstill for the allotted time to allow pedestrians to cross Harbor Dr. It doesn't take an engineer to figure this out, and would improve flow of airport traffic to get up the hill to I-5.
With the predicted increase in passenger traffic, the airport and the city need to come together to solve this, funding will be a major issue since FAA funding support doesn't include off airport property. An already traffic nightmare during heavy travel banks is only going to be more congested, think LAX!

It's not just Harbor Drive - the entire metropolitan area of San Diego has the WORST excuse for any kind of synchronization of traffic lights anywhere, and it is utterly maddening! Downtown is the only place that is even partially synced (the lights are atrocious on 11th Avenue heading towards 163 north!), and El Cajon Blvd seems to have the lights timed to maximize stoppage instead of trying to move people along. But I can't imagine how people living in Eastlake and driving to/from the Golden Triangle do it every day - maddening stop-and-go traffic for miles, only to arrive at a completely clogged 805 north.

I am hopeful that as congestion increases, San Diego's traffic department - bless their hearts - will pull their heads "out into the sunlight" and realize that a solution as simple as modifying already-existing traffic signals could drastically change things for the better. And how do you run bus routes if there's no rhyme or reason to a trip's length other than the whims of unconnected traffic lights?

First world problems. right? I love this city with all my heart, but simple solutions just don't some to happen.

I also seem to remember hearing a story about the building of the trolley line northwards from downtown, up to Old Town. This is absolutely hearsay, and it might be just a rumor, speaking with the public liaison for the city and the Padres in building of Petco Park downtown in 2001, that the cab drivers of San Diego pressured the city not to extend the trolley line into SAN, as it "would take food out their childrens' mouths!". I remember talking with this guy the very first time: it was the Padres proposal for a new downtown stadium, not yet named. Being the transportation person I am, I gave him the third degree on everything I could throw at him in regards to movement of people and vehicles. And darned if he didn't have a really good answer for every single question I came up with: Parking. Percent driving in. Spread-out parking garages. Trolley stops. Percent taking trolley. Coaster. Buses. Walking. Mass exodus. As he told me, "I've been doing this line of work for a very long time, and the city planned this out better than most other projects". With him telling me the story, I've always believed it when he told me the taxi story.

757SanCam wrote:

the airport need to deal with Harbor Drive now. It's bad .

Traffic on Harbor Dr. would really be a mess if the Coast Guard was still taxiing those little jets across Harbor Dr. like they did in the early 90s.

If you'd like to read through them, the other agency responses can be found linked in this article:
https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/economy/dog-pile-local-agencies-blast-the-airport-authoritys-plan-to-redo-terminal-1/

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

It's not just Harbor Drive - the entire metropolitan area of San Diego has the WORST excuse for any kind of synchronization of traffic lights anywhere, and it is utterly maddening! Downtown is the only place that is even partially synced (the lights are atrocious on 11th Avenue heading towards 163 north!), and El Cajon Blvd seems to have the lights timed to maximize stoppage instead of trying to move people along. But I can't imagine how people living in Eastlake and driving to/from the Golden Triangle do it every day - maddening stop-and-go traffic for miles, only to arrive at a completely clogged 805 north.

And really SD has a transit system with lots of room for improvement.

The transit and traffic criticisms of the T1 EIR are valid in the sense that, yes, the airport should do more to help offset the increased traffic from a busier airport. However, for all the crowing of the Port, MTS, and SANDAG about traffic, those agencies need to shoulder some of the responsibility for their contributions to the current and future traffic situation. SANDAG and the Port, who used to run the airport, have studied using Old Town as a connecting point and have studied a trolley alignment along Harbor Blvd. for since at least the 1980s(!) but have never taken meaningful steps to move forward to implement the major study recommendations. It'd be useful if the regional-level transit planning would help increase transit ridership but SANDAG continues to allocate money into the very freeways that keep people in cars and off transit. The traffic issues around the airport are as much a symptom of lacklustre regional transit and transportation planning as they are a symptom of an ever-busier airport.

Along with the cost-efficient solution of getting the traffic signals synced up, getting cars off Grape, Laurel, and Hawthorne should be a priority for the reasons cited above. Pedestrian crossings can back things up, as do the heavy rail trains at the at-grade crossings. The best long-term solution I can think of, and one identified in earlier studies, is a series of direct access ramps from I-5 and Pacific Highway that would connect to the proposed on-airport perimeter road.

An earlier proposal (featuring direct ramps in Alternatives B and E) is seen on pg. 73 of this document: https://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_878_4471.pdf

The other agencies agencies say that the Middletown trolley to shuttle connection is poor. I agree. The elevation change makes wheeling luggage to/from the shuttle a bit unwieldy. The noise from the freeway and Pacific Highway don't help and neither does the limited width of the sidewalk and intrusion of foliage into the walking path. However, I don't know how much the Authority can do to improve the connection without acquiring property from the parking places adjacent to the terminal. Building the elevated walkway they discuss in the airport transit plan to separate foot traffic from having to cross a very wide Pacific Highway would make for a more pleasant connection from trolley to shuttle.

In the mean time, if there are shuttle busses already running from the CONRAC to the terminals, the Authority could encourage people (and set up the infrastructure to make it possible) to drop people off at the CONRAC to board the busses to the terminals. It'd be a rapid bus version of the automated people mover from the North Side proposed in several plans.

As for the EIR itself, I guess the Authority could nix the parking structure in the initial build to appease the EIR critics. They can always add it in later, as they did for the Green Build T2W project. I don't see that as really plausible since the demand for T1 parking is already sky high and will be bigger with the expanded T1.

I think the best way to get trolley access would be to purchase either the property above or below the Middletown Station and turn it into an airport linked bus terminal. Run a bus down Palm and join into the on-property roadway that services the CONRAC. Makes far more economic sense that running a trolley line or skyway down to the terminal.

AZTECFAN wrote:

I think the best way to get trolley access would be to purchase either the property above or below the Middletown Station and turn it into an airport linked bus terminal. Run a bus down Palm and join into the on-property roadway that services the CONRAC. Makes far more economic sense that running a trolley line or skyway down to the terminal.

I have done this kind of thing as a hobby all my life: take a map, find the airport, connect it better, and maximize land usage down to the square inch. I remember seeing the view from the Observation Deck at LAX, and really taken back by how small it is really is, especially for an airport with four runways!

I added my own general thoughts about what would really work for the airport, and this crude "paint off a screen shot" production shows what I think might solve a lot of problems:



My thoughts:

Two tram lines running the length of a now-combined Terminal One and Terminal Two. They run from a western parking lot through the five stops of the terminals, and then split.
Red Line and Yellow Line - the colors of San Diego's flag.
Yellow Line runs from the west parking lot to the Middletown Trolley/Free Airport Shuttle/Passenger Drop-Off Facility. Upgrade this in a lot of ways to encourage usage. It then proceeds one more stop to the Rental Car Facility, the end of the line.
Red Line runs from the west parking lot to Santa Fe Depot. Extra stops TBD.
Tram line is sometimes elevated, other times ground level.

Everything in Terminal One and Two is connected post security, meaning all passengers have full access to the entire airport (restaurants, shops, etc).

I always like to play "If I Ruled The World".

I thought I'd post some of the latest stats at SDIA (as supplied by the SDIA themselves.) These numbers are thru August, 2018.

Total pax at SAN year-to-date: 16.3M (first 8 months of 2018)
Y-T-D change over 2017: +11% (Still double-digit growth Y-O-Y!)
Pax thru FIS: 35K, up 3% Y-O-Y
Op's thru FIS for August: 205, down 5% Y-O-Y

In 2017, SAN saw 22.2M total pax, another record. We should see that total exceeded in 2018, but by how much? I wouldn't be surprised to see well over 23M pax using our airport in 2018. Compared to 2017, thru August, we are still seeing double-digit growth occurring – 11%. The monthly pax traffic growth rates are gradually decreasing, with August at "only" 7.5% growth Y-O-Y.

Interesting to see that pax using the FIS facilities are up by 3%, and account for 1.6% of SAN's total traffic, yet operations thru the FIS are down by 5%. My guess is this is due to NK dropping their Cabo service late last year. SY's meager offerings in the market this summer apparently ended in mid-August but didn't make up for the loss of NK's flights.

However, I'm a bit confused because that big beautiful LH A343 using the FIS 5 days/week should have increased the ops Y-O-Y, just as I’m sure it did help grow the number of pax thru the FIS. Note: this is all just my speculation.

Oh and one other interesting trend that seems to be developing: WN's market share (pax) was over 39% in January 2018, but ~35% in August. OTOH, AS was ~13% in January, but grew to ~15% in August. (These figures are approximate due to the way the stats are reported.) It's not conclusive but they could be showing that WN is down a bit while AAG is up slightly in the market share race. (Again, just my personal speculation.)

Of course in # of daily departures, WN (~110-117 daily flights) is more than double AAG (~46-51) although as far as # of nonstop destinations, they are pretty close: 30 (active and announced) for AAG and 33/34 for WN. (Unfortunately I don't have access to actual and exact pax totals to compare between the two cx.)

So even though SAN's growth rate in the number of pax using the airport is slowing down a bit, there is still healthy growth taking place here. Int'l traffic continues to grow with plenty of room at the new FIS facilities for a lot more more! I would certainly love to see a new int'l flag start serving SDIA in 2019 -- my first choice would be COPA to PTY maybe 3 days a week! This choice would give us our long-sought Latin American service without impacting any of our Euro or Asian carriers' traffic!

bb

SANFan wrote:

I thought I'd post some of the latest stats at SDIA (as supplied by the SDIA themselves.) These numbers are thru August, 2018.

Total pax at SAN year-to-date: 16.3M (first 8 months of 2018)
Y-T-D change over 2017: +11% (Still double-digit growth Y-O-Y!)
Pax thru FIS: 35K, up 3% Y-O-Y
Op's thru FIS for August: 205, down 5% Y-O-Y

In 2017, SAN saw 22.2M total pax, another record. We should see that total exceeded in 2018, but by how much? I wouldn't be surprised to see well over 23M pax using our airport in 2018. Compared to 2017, thru August, we are still seeing double-digit growth occurring – 11%. The monthly pax traffic growth rates are gradually decreasing, with August at "only" 7.5% growth Y-O-Y.

Interesting to see that pax using the FIS facilities are up by 3%, and account for 1.6% of SAN's total traffic, yet operations thru the FIS are down by 5%. My guess is this is due to NK dropping their Cabo service late last year. SY's meager offerings in the market this summer apparently ended in mid-August but didn't make up for the loss of NK's flights.

However, I'm a bit confused because that big beautiful LH A343 using the FIS 5 days/week should have increased the ops Y-O-Y, just as I’m sure it did help grow the number of pax thru the FIS. Note: this is all just my speculation.

Oh and one other interesting trend that seems to be developing: WN's market share (pax) was over 39% in January 2018, but ~35% in August. OTOH, AS was ~13% in January, but grew to ~15% in August. (These figures are approximate due to the way the stats are reported.) It's not conclusive but they could be showing that WN is down a bit while AAG is up slightly in the market share race. (Again, just my personal speculation.)

Of course in # of daily departures, WN (~110-117 daily flights) is more than double AAG (~46-51) although as far as # of nonstop destinations, they are pretty close: 30 (active and announced) for AAG and 33/34 for WN. (Unfortunately I don't have access to actual and exact pax totals to compare between the two cx.)

So even though SAN's growth rate in the number of pax using the airport is slowing down a bit, there is still healthy growth taking place here. Int'l traffic continues to grow with plenty of room at the new FIS facilities for a lot more more! I would certainly love to see a new int'l flag start serving SDIA in 2019 -- my first choice would be COPA to PTY maybe 3 days a week! This choice would give us our long-sought Latin American service without impacting any of our Euro or Asian carriers' traffic!

bb

Hello fellow SAN guy, and thanks for the information! Let me run something by you and the fellow a.net crowd here - maybe there can be a bit of logic out to explain this to me.

Several months back (long before rejoining!), I remember looking at flightaware for SAN, and I noticed that there were THREE flights from SAN to Los Cabos, and all three left within the same half hour, and all three returned to SAN within a half hour of each other: one Southwest, one Alaska, and one Spirit. And if I remember correctly, all three arrived before the Condor/Edelweiss/British rush hour, at least on a Monday. And today, Saturday, October 20, 2018, there are also three flights from SJD: Alaska 1015, Southwest 1214, and Alaska 1019, however, these are all spread out throughout the day. And other than our on-again-off-again PVR flight, there's nothing to Mexico from SAN that lasts.

So what is it about SJD that warrants three flights a day but nothing else really lasts? I know TIJ acts as San Diego's second international airport for flights to Mexico, and literally everywhere in Mexico is accessible - and Cross Border Xpress makes it even easier - but the SJD demand from SAN seems awfully excessive. It's a tourist destination, and most probably very little premium traffic, but yet it continues successfully enough to warrant +/- 450 seats per day when nothing else to Mexico works. Are there really THAT many San Diegans spending money to go lie on just those beaches that won't do it from TIJ?

I give Lufthansa credit for going slowly and carefully with SAN, but I am excited to see that already there's an increase in the premium demand! By encouraging that carefully (in Germany), there will be a solid base that will steadily increase, moving service to daily (or even to both FRA and MUC!!), and then probably followed by SkyTeam service somewhere (I'm thinking blue tails!).

SANFan wrote:

I thought I'd post some of the latest stats at SDIA (as supplied by the SDIA themselves.) These numbers are thru August, 2018.

Total pax at SAN year-to-date: 16.3M (first 8 months of 2018)
Y-T-D change over 2017: +11% (Still double-digit growth Y-O-Y!)
Pax thru FIS: 35K, up 3% Y-O-Y
Op's thru FIS for August: 205, down 5% Y-O-Y

In 2017, SAN saw 22.2M total pax, another record. We should see that total exceeded in 2018, but by how much? I wouldn't be surprised to see well over 23M pax using our airport in 2018. Compared to 2017, thru August, we are still seeing double-digit growth occurring – 11%. The monthly pax traffic growth rates are gradually decreasing, with August at "only" 7.5% growth Y-O-Y.

Interesting to see that pax using the FIS facilities are up by 3%, and account for 1.6% of SAN's total traffic, yet operations thru the FIS are down by 5%. My guess is this is due to NK dropping their Cabo service late last year. SY's meager offerings in the market this summer apparently ended in mid-August but didn't make up for the loss of NK's flights.

However, I'm a bit confused because that big beautiful LH A343 using the FIS 5 days/week should have increased the ops Y-O-Y, just as I’m sure it did help grow the number of pax thru the FIS. Note: this is all just my speculation.

Oh and one other interesting trend that seems to be developing: WN's market share (pax) was over 39% in January 2018, but ~35% in August. OTOH, AS was ~13% in January, but grew to ~15% in August. (These figures are approximate due to the way the stats are reported.) It's not conclusive but they could be showing that WN is down a bit while AAG is up slightly in the market share race. (Again, just my personal speculation.)

Of course in # of daily departures, WN (~110-117 daily flights) is more than double AAG (~46-51) although as far as # of nonstop destinations, they are pretty close: 30 (active and announced) for AAG and 33/34 for WN. (Unfortunately I don't have access to actual and exact pax totals to compare between the two cx.)

So even though SAN's growth rate in the number of pax using the airport is slowing down a bit, there is still healthy growth taking place here. Int'l traffic continues to grow with plenty of room at the new FIS facilities for a lot more more! I would certainly love to see a new int'l flag start serving SDIA in 2019 -- my first choice would be COPA to PTY maybe 3 days a week! This choice would give us our long-sought Latin American service without impacting any of our Euro or Asian carriers' traffic!

bb

Thanks for the stats! Alaska’s growth in SAN is impressive. I think that regarding the dip for market share with WN- the more accurate metric to use (if stats are available) would be to compare the number of seats flown and number of passengers flown. Since WN is much larger than Alaska by number of seats flown into SAN (and since AS flies a number of flights via smaller gauge regional jets), it’s quite possible that WN carried the same amount of passengers (or perhaps even greater) than in the previous months, but their market share as a whole declined at the expense of other carriers adding seats/passengers in the same timeframe. From a mathematical point of view- with WN being as large as it is (not by number of daily flights, but by number of daily SEATS flown into SAN), it would be difficult for them to significantly grow their market share percentage when the next largest carrier by number of passengers is significantly smaller. Any gains made by smaller carriers will reflect more easily in terms percentage changes by adding a couple of daily flights because they are by default that much smaller than WN in SAN.

Lots of angst about the redevelopment of T-1 and the airport in general....

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/bus ... story.html

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

Hello fellow SAN guy, and thanks for the information! Let me run something by you and the fellow a.net crowd here - maybe there can be a bit of logic out to explain this to me.

Several months back (long before rejoining!), I remember looking at flightaware for SAN, and I noticed that there were THREE flights from SAN to Los Cabos, and all three left within the same half hour, and all three returned to SAN within a half hour of each other: one Southwest, one Alaska, and one Spirit. And if I remember correctly, all three arrived before the Condor/Edelweiss/British rush hour, at least on a Monday. And today, Saturday, October 20, 2018, there are also three flights from SJD: Alaska 1015, Southwest 1214, and Alaska 1019, however, these are all spread out throughout the day. And other than our on-again-off-again PVR flight, there's nothing to Mexico from SAN that lasts.

So what is it about SJD that warrants three flights a day but nothing else really lasts? I know TIJ acts as San Diego's second international airport for flights to Mexico, and literally everywhere in Mexico is accessible - and Cross Border Xpress makes it even easier - but the SJD demand from SAN seems awfully excessive. It's a tourist destination, and most probably very little premium traffic, but yet it continues successfully enough to warrant +/- 450 seats per day when nothing else to Mexico works. Are there really THAT many San Diegans spending money to go lie on just those beaches that won't do it from TIJ?

I give Lufthansa credit for going slowly and carefully with SAN, but I am excited to see that already there's an increase in the premium demand! By encouraging that carefully (in Germany), there will be a solid base that will steadily increase, moving service to daily (or even to both FRA and MUC!!), and then probably followed by SkyTeam service somewhere (I'm thinking blue tails!).

Hey PSAatSAN', I see no one else replied to you so let me try. Nice to see your awareness of the strange situation that is SAN-Mexico air service.

Your observations of Cabo and PV frequencies are good but let me add to them. AS has, for years, operated more than daily service in the market, the least number of flights being 8/week and the most has been 17 per week (in summer of '17!) So if you'd picked a different day of the week, you might have seen 2 AS's, 1 WN & 1 NK flight arriving from SJD. If you had checked weekend skeds last July, you'd have also seen SY flying a few r/t in the market! NK left the market late last year, after WN entered it, and who knows what SY may or may not do in the future. So for now, it's AS and WN. Traffic between CA and Cabo has apparently dropped somewhat so I think we will be seeing less AS capacity in the market for a while; it looks like this summer, they will have 'only' daily-double service.

PVR service has actually been very consistent and constant: AS has flown the market since Nov 2010 with anywhere from 1 weekly flight to 4, depending on the season. WN just entered that market this last March, with weekend-only service (twice weekly) and seem committed to remaining on the route.

To me, it seems strange that nobody in recent history has attempted MZT or LTO. AS's EMJ would be the perfect a/c for both routes, probably a few times per week. (I personally think AS could put an EMJ on SAN-PVR and fly it daily but, as usual, their network planners don't listen to me nearly enough!)

After all of that (probably) useless information, I think you are spot on with your guess as to the situation. Even though there is (limited, I believe) service from TIJ to both Cabo and PV, there are MANY San Diegans with condo's in the 2 Mexican resorts, or simply those going for hotel vacations, who will not fly out of TIJ on Mexican cx. I found this to be the case when I was a travel agent selling my clients air travel to Mexico. Most of my clients would much rather fly from SAN than TIJ if there was service available from Lindbergh Field.

The VFR and business destinations such as GDL and MEX are a different matter and most anyone seems content to fly there from TIJ. You will remember that AS flew SAN-MEX for a brief period earlier this year and axed the route -- as well as from SFO and soon, LAX. I don't think the timing was optimal from SAN but I can't really complain as the flight was a daily EMJ. They offered the service for just 6 months. I seriously doubt we will see anyone try SAN-GDL or MEX anytime soon. Too bad.

One other thing to consider. I think both WN and AS fly at least some connecting traffic via SAN to both Cabo and PV. You'll notice that AS's daily flight to Cabo departs here ~10-11am, returning ~4; WN is usually similar if not a bit earlier. That timing certainly offers connecting opportunities over SAN. I would think the timing of the flights to Cabo might be a clue to how much connecting traffic there is.

Also, fairly recently, AS added an early morning departure from SAN to SJD, ~7-8am, sometimes sub-daily. I'd guess that flight was added strictly to offer the O&D traffic from SAN seats of their own in case the connecting traffic was filling up the later flights. Also, last summer, AS also had a 2pm departure to Cabo - even better for connections. That's my conjecture anyway.

I too agree with you about LH. And I think SAN's philosophy has always been to be conservative and let the int'l routes mature and let traffic build before actively searching out more competition for them. One tool is SAN's incentive package, available to new int'l cx at SAN. For 2-3 years after BA began serving SAN, the incentive was blocked to any new cx wanting to fly to Europe; the same thing was done with Asia for a couple of years after JL arrived here. (Always notable to me was that SAN-MNL was NOT blocked from the Aisa/Pacific incentive, essentially saying, "PR, you are welcome to come to SAN any time!")

I truly believe there is a major, legacy Euro carrier (with a large connecting hub on the Continent) waiting in the wings to start flying to SAN. My guess would be they will come to SAN in 2020 (giving LH 2 solid years to grow and establish themselves here, which certainly seems to be happening rather nicely -- and fast!)

bb

Thanks for the response, SANFAN! It just doesn't seem to fit the typical pattern of San Diego, having that much demand JUST for a single airport in Mexico, but I then again, I never think of SAN as a "connecting airport" - but it does happen, and apparently, a lot more than I thought!

As far as the rest of Mexico is concerned, I am happy that Cross Border Xpress has made this San Diego's second airport, specifically for Mexico service. The ability to avoid the deep circles of Hades that are Otay Mesa and San Ysidro for a mere pittance is worth more in cross-border air service than anything I can imagine. I wouldn't hesitate to use TIJ for flying within Mexico, especially if it saved a lot of $$$.

A question about SAN's incentive program: if two international carriers wanted to start service that didn't compete with each other route-wise, would the incentive program be open to both? I'm thinking about blue tails - one to Europe, and one to Asia - but could they BOTH receive the incentive benefits? Or possibly a third to Panama City as well?

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

Thanks for the response, SANFAN! It just doesn't seem to fit the typical pattern of San Diego, having that much demand JUST for a single airport in Mexico, but I then again, I never think of SAN as a "connecting airport" - but it does happen, and apparently, a lot more than I thought!

Sure! Probably a whole lot more than you wanted but, hey, the topic is certainly within my range of interest. Remember, the reasons I gave were just my opinions.

Yes, you know that WN connects a LOT of their pax thru SDIA and I'd bet there's quite a bit of additional connecting traffic thru here, including a healthy amount on AS. I have no idea if AS considers SAN as a connecting hub or not, but with ~50 daily flights to 30 different destinations, it sure seems realistic to think so.

In fact, just for sh**s and giggles, I just looked at the 11/4 turn schedule for SAN, and good connections to the 1:03am Cabo flight -- most are less than ~2 hours -- are available from: MRY, SEA, GEG, PDX, BOI, MCI, FAT, BWI, SJC, SFO and SMF! I had no idea! And from either of the returns -- arriving back in SAN at 12:39pm and 4:25pm, pax may connect back to PDX, SFO, SLC, SEA, DAL, STS, SJC, GEG, MCI, SMF, BOI, FAT. Therefore, r/t connections to/from Cabo are available for SEA, GEG, PDX, BOI, MCI, FAT, SJC, SFO & SMF! (There are even a couple more, such as BWI, but they involve a bit of a layover in one direction.)

This is really amazing! I hadn't looked at this in a long time. And this is just to/from Cabo; there's also PVR and probably some Hawaii connections, not to mention purely domestic, mainland possibilities such as FAT-SAN-OMA/MCO/STL/ABQ, SMF-SAN-MCO, DAL-SAN-STS/GEG, SJC-SAN-MCI, ELP-SAN-PDX/SFO/SMF/SJC (starting next Feb), and on and on. I take it back -- AAG MUST be considering SAN to be a fast-growing connecting hub for their network!

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

As far as the rest of Mexico is concerned, I am happy that Cross Border Xpress has made this San Diego's second airport, specifically for Mexico service. The ability to avoid the deep circles of Hades that are Otay Mesa and San Ysidro for a mere pittance is worth more in cross-border air service than anything I can imagine. I wouldn't hesitate to use TIJ for flying within Mexico, especially if it saved a lot of $$$.

I'm sure there are some people who don't want to use the CBX or Rodriguez Airport but today, it's 1 of 2 ways to get to Mexico by air from San Diego (other than SJD & PVR), the other being flying thru or from LAX! Even I would have to admit that's not really a choice!

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

A question about SAN's incentive program: if two international carriers wanted to start service that didn't compete with each other route-wise, would the incentive program be open to both? I'm thinking about blue tails - one to Europe, and one to Asia - but could they BOTH receive the incentive benefits? Or possibly a third to Panama City as well?

First, PSA', here's the link to the SDIA Air Incentive Package pages at SAN.org so you can study them yourself:
https://www.san.org/Business-Opportunit ... -Incentive

I don't have time right now to study the current versions but I know there at least used to be separate incentives for different zones in the world so the answer to your question is 'yes'. Europe, Asia and Latin America are all treated as separate areas. For example, KLM, Korean and COPA could all start SAN service at the same time with each getting the incentive! (In fact, it looks like they've separated out 'seasonal' service now so I would guess both LH and WK are receiving the incentive; DE did not stay around long enough to receive it however.) I will look over the incentive packages as soon as I get a chance but please update us if you find anything exciting PSA'!

bb

SANFan wrote:

To me, it seems strange that nobody in recent history has attempted MZT or LTO.
bb

The only thing I remember out of those two destinations were that AeroCalifornia did SAN-MZT in the early 90s (remember them? With the red, orange, and yellow DC-9s?) And Aeromexico announced LTO, but never operated it.

I've been looking at AS skeds for next year and found some nice things to share. (Keep in mind I cannot 100% guarantee that these are the finalized skeds but my experience tells me with 99% certainty that this info is accurate.)

I've been anxiously waiting to see these things start to show up as an indication that things are going well for AAG in SAN!

> Eff. March 10, our MSP r/t apparently will be upgraded to mainline Airbus service! (Don't ask what flavor of 'Bus -- or 737 -- 'cause I don't even attempt to keep track.)
> Eff. March 22, the SJC market should see mainline service - 1 daily r/t Airbus! (In fact, the same airplane that will be serving MSP.)
> Eff. April 1, Austin is showing Boeing mainline service!
> Eff. April 1, Sacramento will receive its 4th daily r/t, which will just happen to be with a Boeing 737. (Again, the same airplane that will be serving AUS.)
> Eff. April 7, SJC expects to see 2 more flights upgraded, 1 to a 737 and 1 to an Airbus! Three of the 4 r/t will therefore be flown with mainline a/c, the 4th remains an EMJ.

These routes are primarily competitive with WN (except, as of now anyway, MSP which of course competes with DL) so I'm very happy to see AS rolling up their sleeves and digging in against any and all carriers! For starters, against WN, AS can promise Premium Class seating up front on every flight!

I certainly don't expect these are all the goodies we'll see in 2019 from AS. I am impressed. I remain very hopeful that we will see at least a couple more new routes (including PAE, supposedly early in the year.) And maybe even a few more EMJ routes upgraded to larger jets?

bb

SANFan wrote:

(Always notable to me was that SAN-MNL was NOT blocked from the Aisa/Pacific incentive, essentially saying, "PR, you are welcome to come to SAN any time!")

Alas...it seems that both of our wishes are not meant to be... ...you for PR to serve SAN.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -t-452909/

Quote:
"The carrier will receive two additional A350s in 2019 and is considering additional USA services, either to Chicago or Seattle."


.....and me for them to acquire A338s..... .....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... it-452906/

Quote:
"Airbus insists the maiden flight of its A330-800 will be conducted “in the near future”, after the aircraft emerged with its engines installed.

The airframer says it has yet to firm a date for the -800’s first flight. Its initial test aircraft, MSN1888, is registered F-WTTO.

Airbus gives a standard seating capacity of 257 for the twinjet, slightly higher than that for the A330-200 on which the re-engined airframe is based.

The -800’s sales have been far weaker than those for the -900, which has landed 224 orders."

SANFan wrote:

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

Thanks for the response, SANFAN! It just doesn't seem to fit the typical pattern of San Diego, having that much demand JUST for a single airport in Mexico, but I then again, I never think of SAN as a "connecting airport" - but it does happen, and apparently, a lot more than I thought!

Sure! Probably a whole lot more than you wanted

Never! Nothing more I love about my adopted hometown than the most spectacular approach and facility in the U.S.!

Yes, you know that WN connects a LOT of their pax thru SDIA and I'd bet there's quite a bit of additional connecting traffic thru here, including a healthy amount on AS. I have no idea if AS considers SAN as a connecting hub or not, but with ~50 daily flights to 30 different destinations, it sure seems realistic to think so.

In fact, just for sh**s and giggles, I just looked at the 11/4 turn schedule for SAN, and good connections to the 1:03am Cabo flight -- most are less than ~2 hours -- are available from: MRY, SEA, GEG, PDX, BOI, MCI, FAT, BWI, SJC, SFO and SMF! I had no idea! And from either of the returns -- arriving back in SAN at 12:39pm and 4:25pm, pax may connect back to PDX, SFO, SLC, SEA, DAL, STS, SJC, GEG, MCI, SMF, BOI, FAT. Therefore, r/t connections to/from Cabo are available for SEA, GEG, PDX, BOI, MCI, FAT, SJC, SFO & SMF! (There are even a couple more, such as BWI, but they involve a bit of a layover in one direction.)

This is really amazing! I hadn't looked at this in a long time. And this is just to/from Cabo; there's also PVR and probably some Hawaii connections, not to mention purely domestic, mainland possibilities such as FAT-SAN-OMA/MCO/STL/ABQ, SMF-SAN-MCO, DAL-SAN-STS/GEG, SJC-SAN-MCI, ELP-SAN-PDX/SFO/SMF/SJC (starting next Feb), and on and on. I take it back -- AAG MUST be considering SAN to be a fast-growing connecting hub for their network!

The new Terminal One is need immediately. Start digging, boys, and connect every gate post-security, so CUTE gates are utilized to their maximum.

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

As far as the rest of Mexico is concerned, I am happy that Cross Border Xpress has made this San Diego's second airport, specifically for Mexico service. The ability to avoid the deep circles of Hades that are Otay Mesa and San Ysidro for a mere pittance is worth more in cross-border air service than anything I can imagine. I wouldn't hesitate to use TIJ for flying within Mexico, especially if it saved a lot of $$$.

I'm sure there are some people who don't want to use the CBX or Rodriguez Airport but today, it's 1 of 2 ways to get to Mexico by air from San Diego (other than SJD & PVR), the other being flying thru or from LAX! Even I would have to admit that's not really a choice!

The trip up and through security might be longer than the actual flight into Mexico.

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

A question about SAN's incentive program: if two international carriers wanted to start service that didn't compete with each other route-wise, would the incentive program be open to both? I'm thinking about blue tails - one to Europe, and one to Asia - but could they BOTH receive the incentive benefits? Or possibly a third to Panama City as well?

First, PSA', here's the link to the SDIA Air Incentive Package pages at SAN.org so you can study them yourself:
https://www.san.org/Business-Opportunit ... -Incentive

I don't have time right now to study the current versions but I know there at least used to be separate incentives for different zones in the world so the answer to your question is 'yes'. Europe, Asia and Latin America are all treated as separate areas. For example, KLM, Korean and COPA could all start SAN service at the same time with each getting the incentive! (In fact, it looks like they've separated out 'seasonal' service now so I would guess both LH and WK are receiving the incentive; DE did not stay around long enough to receive it however.) I will look over the incentive packages as soon as I get a chance but please update us if you find anything exciting PSA'!

bb

The moment I saw the LH group condor on the Condor flight, I KNEW this was Lufthansa's way of gauging the premium traffic demands, as well as ensuring LAX loads weren't suffering. Call me the amazing psychic Kreskin of San Diego airlines, but I knew in my heart that Condor was out and Lufthansa would be the one on its way after winter. And it was! And now with the A340-600 upgrade coming, I know Lufthansa is greatly pleased with yields and loads on this route.

Still hoping for blue tails, SkyTeam, but only when the time is right. Still hoping for COPA someday, as well, but patience has given us much.

Devilfish wrote:

SANFan wrote:

(Always notable to me was that SAN-MNL was NOT blocked from the Aisa/Pacific incentive, essentially saying, "PR, you are welcome to come to SAN any time!")

Alas...it seems that both of our wishes are not meant to be... ...you for PR to serve SAN.....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -t-452909/

Quote:
"The carrier will receive two additional A350s in 2019 and is considering additional USA services, either to Chicago or Seattle."


.....and me for them to acquire A338s..... .....

What a shame..what a shame

Devilfish wrote:

Alas...it seems that both of our wishes are not meant to be... ...you for PR to serve SAN.....

.....and me for them to acquire A338s..... .....

Oh man! I don't know about you, Devil' but several years ago I gave up hoping for PR to start service at SAN. However, I still reserve the right to be thrilled should it magically happen at some point in time. (Seems to me the folks at SDIA might share my philosophy these days.) It has certainly been a rollercoaster of a journey ever since PR applied for DOT authorization to become a permanent tenant at SDIA. (Which I feel I simply must point out is more, AFAIK, than they've ever done with SEA or ORD.)

I am sorry that, as of now, the carrier has passed on the A338 but again, seems to me that could always change. A slim chance is still a chance... Keep the faith, my friend.

bb

mikeyp224 wrote:

The Lufthansa A346 is going to look awesome landing in San Diego!

Yeah! Can't wait to see such a site here in SAN.

I have a question for everybody -- Is LH flying the 330 into SAN occasionally?? This past Monday I was traveling down the I-125/94-W and saw what appeared to be a 330 flying past. The sun was in front of me so I could not clearly see the tail, but it looked like LH's tail. I saw one engine on each wing and I thought I could see the wings clear enough. Flightaware listed the flight as a 340, so maybe I saw a 340?

JAAlbert wrote:

mikeyp224 wrote:

The Lufthansa A346 is going to look awesome landing in San Diego!

Yeah! Can't wait to see such a site here in SAN.

I have a question for everybody -- Is LH flying the 330 into SAN occasionally?? This past Monday I was traveling down the I-125/94-W and saw what appeared to be a 330 flying past. The sun was in front of me so I could not clearly see the tail, but it looked like LH's tail. I saw one engine on each wing and I thought I could see the wings clear enough. Flightaware listed the flight as a 340, so maybe I saw a 340?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDuWZl1RO8U

Flightaware is not showing an A330 recently, but it has happened in the past. Last minute substitution. but most definitely not the preferred aircraft. Take-off restrictions mean a LOT of cargo got left behind...

JAAlbert wrote:

mikeyp224 wrote:

The Lufthansa A346 is going to look awesome landing in San Diego!

Yeah! Can't wait to see such a site here in SAN.

I have a question for everybody -- Is LH flying the 330 into SAN occasionally?? This past Monday I was traveling down the I-125/94-W and saw what appeared to be a 330 flying past. The sun was in front of me so I could not clearly see the tail, but it looked like LH's tail. I saw one engine on each wing and I thought I could see the wings clear enough. Flightaware listed the flight as a 340, so maybe I saw a 340?

It's happened only twice since they started back in March. Once was after the A343 diverted back to FRA due to some mechanical issue. Not quite sure why they sent one the second time.

mikeyp224 wrote:

JAAlbert wrote:

mikeyp224 wrote:

The Lufthansa A346 is going to look awesome landing in San Diego!

Yeah! Can't wait to see such a site here in SAN.

I have a question for everybody -- Is LH flying the 330 into SAN occasionally?? This past Monday I was traveling down the I-125/94-W and saw what appeared to be a 330 flying past. The sun was in front of me so I could not clearly see the tail, but it looked like LH's tail. I saw one engine on each wing and I thought I could see the wings clear enough. Flightaware listed the flight as a 340, so maybe I saw a 340?

It's happened only twice since they started back in March. Once was after the A343 diverted back to FRA due to some mechanical issue. Not quite sure why they sent one the second time.

Thanks for the info! I need to remember to check LH 467 more often than I'm doing - if there is another A330 substitution, I want to see it!

By the way, I've been hearing that in regards to the A340-600 upgauge coming soon to SAN, the first class is going to be sold as business. Is this still true? And if so, how is it being marketed to differentiate it from "regular" business class?

And how often is this done in the airline business?

My conjecture: there is an increased cargo demand on Saturdays, Sundays, and Mondays to/from Germany and the San Diego area, thus necessitating the larger plane on this route. The maximum take-off weight for a -600 is 811,000 pounds (368,000 kilos). more than a 777-300, AND the 4-engine layout means the weight restrictions are a LOT less a two-engine aircraft. However, as we are seeing, aircraft such as the 787 and A350 are designed specifically for challenging conditions such as SAN, so this may not be as much an issue as before. But for the time being, if my conjecture proves correct, future aircraft to SAN (after the retirement of the A340 fleet) will need to be as good as a 4-jet and better.

WN has its next schedule extension next week, and WN could add at least SAN-OMA nonstop service in order to better compete against AS in the SAN market. WN could also possibly add SAN-BOS and SAN-MSP nonstop service in order to strengthen its position against AS in the SAN market.

Will WN announce any new nonstop routes out of SAN to destinations in the contiguous U.S. in its November 15th schedule extension, and if so, which new WN nonstop routes out of SAN is WN likely to announce next week?

I am hoping for resumption of SAN-IND and Southwest makes it yea round service not 3 months or less

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

jplatts wrote:

WN has its next schedule extension next week, and WN could add at least SAN-OMA nonstop service in order to better compete against AS in the SAN market. WN could also possibly add SAN-BOS and SAN-MSP nonstop service in order to strengthen its position against AS in the SAN market.

Will WN announce any new nonstop routes out of SAN to destinations in the contiguous U.S. in its November 15th schedule extension, and if so, which new WN nonstop routes out of SAN is WN likely to announce next week?

Good post j'. I think you've listed most of the most likely new routes from SAN -- mainly because they are about the only destinations that are served by AS but not already by WN -- but I could see a couple more options: PHL, ORF, RDU, FLL. (These routes of course are not yet flown by AS either.)

PHL is a pretty large monopoly route out of SAN that could certainly stand competition; WN currently offers no transcons in their network out of PHL but I remember that several years ago, they were very close to starting some transcons, inc. SAN. RDU needs real service, unlike what F9 brings to the market -- if in fact they still even fly the route. FLL currently has year-round service on B6 but it is a red-eye and I think a better-scheduled daylight r/t would perhaps out-perform B6 and do well. ORF has been discussed on many threads recently and I'll just say it's a route that deserves and would support nonstop service but has major military-related issues that have to be considered.

One real long-shot market I would personally love to see WN try would be MEX; AS just tried it and failed so I realize it's very unlikely but who knows, perhaps WN could make it work. (And I 'm sure they'd love to show up AS who couldn't.) WN already competes with AAG in two Mexico markets from SAN.

This next schedule release at WN will of course be the peak summer edition, so all 3 of our seasonal routes should be back (inc IND as mentioned by ibethebigd); I too hope that all 3 -- TPA & MKE in addition to IND -- will become year-round routes. (I'm curious to see if GEG returns on WN.) This would be a likely schedule to see the addition of a new route or two by WN; there could also be some frequency increases on existing routes.

I'm kind of excited (and even a bit hopeful) about the possibilities of what we might see next Thursday from WN.

bb

Alaska's PAE flights to/from SAN current schedule: All PAE flights starting in February 2019
SAN 7:45 am - PAE 10:45 am
SAN 2:20 pm - PAE 5:20 pm

PAE 10:40 am - SAN 1:30 pm
PAE 7:45 pm - SAN 10:35 pm

FA9295 wrote:

Alaska's PAE flights to/from SAN current schedule: All PAE flights starting in February 2019
SAN 7:45 am - PAE 10:45 am
SAN 2:20 pm - PAE 5:20 pm

PAE 10:40 am - SAN 1:30 pm
PAE 7:45 pm - SAN 10:35 pm

Thank you FA9'. I was going to report this info after I got thru all the stuff WN provided today -- which I can now do.

Re: the AS news, SAN was originally supposed to get a single r/t to PAE but since WN pulled out of the market, AS got additional slots (for a total of 18 daily departures) and SAN was gifted daily-double service in the brand new market! The flights will start Feb 18-20, 2019 and will be flown with Horizon EMJs. (This new route will get AS up to 31 destinations out of SAN with right about 50 daily departures.)

Switching gears, I'm almost speechless about what WN has revealed about their June 9, 2019 sked: SAN will see 130 daily departures to 36 unique destinations! All of our seasonal routes are back -- IND, MKE, GEG and TPA. All but MKE will see a single daily r/t while MKE gets only once-weekly service. (?) (TPA actually returns next March.)

Two new destinations will be added: Omaha and Norfolk! (Yes, I said NORFOLK!!) Unfortunately, the flight to ORF will also be only once-weekly so I'm guessing this is a bit of a test by WN. The market is complicated (due to the huge percentage of traffic that is military) and if I'm remembering correctly, WN does not have the GSA contract at this time. If WN gets enough traffic on the route, hopefully they will keep it and even increase capacity. Otherwise, they may wait it out until they get the GSA contract.

OMA is an add, I'm sure, because AS has had the route to themselves for a year or so and it was apparently performing very well. So WN jumped in. ORF was probably partly added for bragging rights; nobody has ever served the route which, as I've reported here before, has enough traffic for a daily year-round r/t. (Another route that I had hoped AS would grab first.)

There certainly is no doubt that WN is seriously trying to rid themselves of that pesky AS as they continue to start almost every route that AS serves from SAN. Would you believe that WN will offer 16 r/t in the SAN-SJC market, and 15 to SMF! WN has also increased frequencies in these other markets: MDW, HOU, BNA, RNO, SLC! They will offer 15 more flights than during Summer 2018!

All in all, a very nice day for SAN, with the first good news in a month or two!

bb

SANFan wrote:

FA9295 wrote:

Alaska's PAE flights to/from SAN current schedule: All PAE flights starting in February 2019
SAN 7:45 am - PAE 10:45 am
SAN 2:20 pm - PAE 5:20 pm

PAE 10:40 am - SAN 1:30 pm
PAE 7:45 pm - SAN 10:35 pm

Thank you FA9'. I was going to report this info after I got thru all the stuff WN provided today -- which I can now do.

Re: the AS news, SAN was originally supposed to get a single r/t to PAE but since WN pulled out of the market, AS got additional slots (for a total of 18 daily departures) and SAN was gifted daily-double service in the brand new market! The flights will start Feb 18-20, 2019 and will be flown with Horizon EMJs. (This new route will get AS up to 31 destinations out of SAN with right about 50 daily departures.)

Switching gears, I'm almost speechless about what WN has revealed about their June 9, 2019 sked: SAN will see 130 daily departures to 36 unique destinations! All of our seasonal routes are back -- IND, MKE, GEG and TPA. All but MKE will see a single daily r/t while MKE gets only once-weekly service. (?) (TPA actually returns next March.)

Two new destinations will be added: Omaha and Norfolk! (Yes, I said NORFOLK!!) Unfortunately, the flight to ORF will also be only once-weekly so I'm guessing this is a bit of a test by WN. The market is complicated (due to the huge percentage of traffic that is military) and if I'm remembering correctly, WN does not have the GSA contract at this time. If WN gets enough traffic on the route, hopefully they will keep it and even increase capacity. Otherwise, they may wait it out until they get the GSA contract.

OMA is an add, I'm sure, because AS has had the route to themselves for a year or so and it was apparently performing very well. So WN jumped in. ORF was probably partly added for bragging rights; nobody has ever served the route which, as I've reported here before, has enough traffic for a daily year-round r/t. (Another route that I had hoped AS would grab first.)

There certainly is no doubt that WN is seriously trying to rid themselves of that pesky AS as they continue to start almost every route that AS serves from SAN. Would you believe that WN will offer 16 r/t in the SAN-SJC market, and 15 to SMF! WN has also increased frequencies in these other markets: MDW, HOU, BNA, RNO, SLC! They will offer 15 more flights than during Summer 2018!

All in all, a very nice day for SAN, with the first good news in a month or two!

bb

Yeah, I've seen ORF mentioned quite a bit on this particular thread. Although the SAN-ORF flight will only once weekly, you gotta start somewhere! It's interesting to see that SAN will get a nonstop flight to ORF before LAX does! Never thought I'd see that coming... Depending on the timing of the flight, maybe I'll be able to connect to ORF via SAN from PDX...

SAN-OMA is an interesting add, and it's good to see that Southwest is willing to go up against Alaska on some of SAN's key markets. Now it would be cool if Southwest would go up against Alaska at PDX, although SAN is home-territory for Southwest and PDX is (kinda-sorta) home-territory for Alaska, so I guess that really wouldn't make all that much sense...

No plans for SAN-OKC/TUL?


Oklahoma route could work!

FA9295 wrote:

It's interesting to see that SAN will get a nonstop flight to ORF before LAX does!

Norfolk and San Diego are both Navy towns, Los Angeles not so much. So there is that natural traffic, though once a week isn't going to do much to attract business travelers.

FA9295 wrote:

Yeah, I've seen ORF mentioned quite a bit on this particular thread. Although the SAN-ORF flight will only once weekly, you gotta start somewhere! It's interesting to see that SAN will get a nonstop flight to ORF before LAX does! Never thought I'd see that coming... Depending on the timing of the flight, maybe I'll be able to connect to ORF via SAN from PDX...

Well, there really isn't very much traffic between Norfolk and LA but there's a ton of it ORF-SAN (for obvious reasons.) The first 2 quarters of 2018 averaged 149 PDEW between the 2 large Naval Base locations. The only other transcon from ORF will eventually be SEA I would assume -- for the same reason: the Navy.

The carrier with the GSA contract for ORF-SAN would be the logical one to offer nonstop service but that hasn't happened ever. It is probably a matter of costs and yields on a transcon where a large percentage of the pax are traveling on a fairly cheap government fare. Maybe that will change somehow now that WN has taken the first step...

It's strange to look at WN's Route Map for ORF -- just a handful of routes but there's that transcon to SAN kind of jumping out at you!

FA9295 wrote:

SAN-OMA is an interesting add, and it's good to see that Southwest is willing to go up against Alaska on some of SAN's key markets. Now it would be cool if Southwest would go up against Alaska at PDX, although SAN is home-territory for Southwest and PDX is (kinda-sorta) home-territory for Alaska, so I guess that really wouldn't make all that much sense...

I've gotta say, there aren't many markets left that AAG serves from SAN where WN isn't competing. (And visa-versa in many cases.) The markets that these 2 cx are now both serving are for the most part, large enough for 2 cx and of course, the competition is great. AS has some intra-CA markets -- with more to come soon I hope -- that WN won't touch because they don't have the right airplane.

Nice talking with you FA9'. I'm always happy to see you here on this thread, as well as when I visit the PDX one (and others!)

bb