SAN ANTONIO | City and Metro News Thread

[Spoiler]

Originally Posted by wrendog

Not to mention the market of Wisconsin's NFL team!

But the Packers are a community-owned franchise. This is no longer allowed.

[Onward]

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam

Too small? You can't possibly say that when Milwaukee has both an NBA and MLB team.

Pro Sports tend to look at media market size as a major factor for location. Yes a passionate owner can always stick a team where he pleases. But from a business standpoint you want a large population center, largest media market possible, and a location where said sport has a following.

2014 Media Market Top 100

19 Orlando-Daytona Beach "Rays over in Tampa"
20 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto "A's/Giants"
22 Portland OR "A"
24 Raleigh-Durham "AAA"
25 Charlotte "AAA"
26 Indianapolis "AAA"
29 Nashville "AAA"
30 Hartford - New Haven "Redsox/Yankees"
31 Kansas City "Royals"
32 Columbus, OH "Reds"
33 Salt Lake City "AAA"
34 Milwaukee "Your Example"
35 Cincinnati "Reds"
36 San Antonio "AA"


If you want to go by MSA numbers only Portland and Charlotte are larger than San Antonio.


Like I said anything is possible and a lot of factors come into play like the corporate base in a city, the local politicians willingness to work out a stadium deal, etc. I'm a huge Spurs fan and they have made it work in San Antonio, but Baseball is a totally different monster. Once/if we get a AAA team I'd feel better about our chances for MLB. I still say if a team does decide to relocate that Charlotte/Indianapolis/Salt Lake City stand the best odds of getting em.

[STLtoSA]

I am not sold on MLB in SA yet. I definitely think that it would work, but I am not sure if it would happen. However, when comparing to Charlotte/Indianapolis/Salt Lake City; only Salt Lake is a true competitor (for the A's). I also think that Portland is prime competition for a team moving. Indianapolis does not have the money or ability to support a new team (not just a third team, a new team). Charlotte has the money, but I am not sure about what the draw would be, since that have two pro franchises and NASCAR.

I think it depends on whether the debate is what city can BEST support a franchise or what city is the best fit for a Franchise.

Oakland A's:
Montreal and San Antonio have been thrown out there, but I believe that Salt Lake City and Portland will be two other competitors if the A's move from Oakland. Montreal is kind of an outlier and I am not too sure why they are in the conversation; great city, but an AL West team in Montreal? The other three cities make since for the A's from a divisional standpoint, but it always comes down to incentives; who can build a stadium and have a good lease agreement, and what can be made from TV Rights.

I think that San Antonio could build a stadium, but the big question would be where. As for the TV Rights, that is where SA is at a slight disadvantage. Fox Sports SW covers the state and any contract with them gets you the most coverage, but also competes with everything else aired by them. As has been stated the SA Media Market id not reflective of the Metro size, but there is Austin to the north and that may provide a little extra. The problem with SA and Austin is that a lot of the growth of the city consists of transplants. Transplants tend to have their own roots and favorite teams, and as it has been seen in Arizona sports franchises, it can have an effect on attendance and support.

Tampa Bay Rays:
I think that SA would be at the back of the pack if the Rays were looking at moving. I would think that Montreal and Charlotte would be the front runners, with maybe even Jacksonville and another NYC team would be ahead of SA.

I am not holding out hope for SA. I will take a wait and see approach, but if a team like the A's truly looks to leave; SA will be and is a viable candidate.

[sirkingwilliam]

OAKLAND RAIDERS OWNER IN TALKS WITH SAN ANTONIO TO RELOCATE NFL TEAM

Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis and two top lieutenants met recently with several San Antonio officials to discuss the potential of moving his NFL team from the Bay Area to the Alamo City, sources familiar with the matter have confirmed.

On July 18, Davis met with the officials, including Henry Cisneros, then-Mayor Julián Castro, City Manager Sheryl Sculley, Mario Hernandez of the San Antonio Economic Development Foundation, and both Richard Perez and David McGee, the president and chairman of the San Antonio Chamber of Commerce, respectively.

Davis and his associates reportedly spent two or three days here, visiting the Alamodome and other places. They also took an aerial tour of the city in a helicopter, arranged by developer Marty Wender.

If the Raiders moved here, though, Davis is expected to seek a new stadium within a few years, after the team had proved itself in the Alamo City.

Davis told San Antonio civic and business leaders he isn't seeking a “Jerry Jones-type facility” and prefers “a small, intimate” stadium that he can place “a statue of his father in front of,” a source said.

[sirkingwilliam]

AT&T CHOOSES SAN ANTONIO FOR GIGAPOWER

AT&T announced Tuesday that it will introduce its GigaPower network to the San Antonio market — capable of downloading 25 songs in one second, a TV show in three seconds and an HD online movie in 36 seconds — though the company did not provide a timetable for the roll-out.

The service also allows customers to watch and record five simultaneous HD streams.

“AT&T's investment will deliver some of the fastest broadband Internet speeds our city has ever seen, helping spur economic growth across the city,” Mayor Ivy Taylor said in a statement. “When local governments and the private sector work together, consumers and businesses win.”

Availability and pricing of the service in the San Antonio market, will be announced later, AT&T said in a press release.

[sirkingwilliam]

TIME WARNER CABLE JOINS FIBER-OPTIC RACE IN SAN ANTONIO

The field of competitors in the race to provide San Antonio with faster fiber-optic networks is getting crowded, with Time Warner Cable jumping in Thursday.

The company announced it will provide its San Antonio customers — along with those in six other markets — upgraded Internet and TV services as a part of the expansion of their TWC Maxx network by the end of 2015.

Internet speeds will be up to six times faster than they are now for customers in San Antonio. DVRs will be able to record six shows at once and store about 150 hours of high-definition shows.

The provider is converting to an all-digital system, providing digital converters to customers with cable boxes and turning all remaining analog channels to digital.

TWC's announcement comes two days after AT&T announced it will roll out its high-speed GigaPower network in San Antonio.

[texboy]

SAT gaining notice for possible European route

For San Antonio, the strong connections at Houston and Dallas/Fort Worth help explain why it has so far been overlooked by the Europeans, although neither Houston nor Dallas/Fort Worth is very close to San Antonio (at around 200 miles or more). By contrast British Airways serves the smaller Texas city of Austin, the Texan capital, which is only 70 miles from San Antonio, with a double daily 787-8 service from London Heathrow. Southwest is also the leading airline at Austin's Bergstrom airport.

American/US Airways are number two at San Antonio, with 17% of seats, suggesting that oneworld partner British Airways could have some interest in the destination in the future. Star's United (15% of seats) and SkyTeam's Delta (14%) are close behind, raising the possibility that Lufthansa and Air France-KLM may also take a look at San Antonio.

[jaga185]

That would be awesome to get some European routes! It would do wonders for tourism that's for sure. And hopefully entice more business travel.

[sakyle04]

Best part of the article:

As the fourth largest city in the US, San Antonio would seem to be a prime candidate for direct flights from European airlines.

#CityOnTheRise

Originally Posted by texboy

SAT gaining notice for possible European route

[JACKinBeantown]

I wonder how Houston feels about that.

[Sean1187]

BA does not provide double daily service to AUS. They only fly in once a day and fly out once (That's not double daily). AUS also has more passenger traffic than SAT. I'd imagine by now that number is approaching 1M more passengers than SAT (2013, AUS had 900K more). With the tech industry in Austin and events such as SXSW, Formula 1, and the X Games, it's a more desirable destination than SA. Don't get me wrong, I love SA and would love nothing more than to see international service with a wide body plane, such as the beautiful 787 Dreamliner, but it'll be awhile until that happens.

As for the "fourth largest city in the US" quote. Please find a source that shows this.
NYC, LA, CHI, HOU, PHL, PHX are all bigger. Our overall metro population pushes us even further back into the 20s, behind cities such as San Francisco and Detroit. We are, however, in the fourth largest countyin the state of Texas behind Harris, Dallas, and Tarrant.

Again, I hate to be the Debbie Downer, but the article itself was full of holes. I had the same excitement when I first read it prior to seeing it here, but after further review, saw that it was incredibly flawed. The ONE thing it did have correct was the fact that we're the largest city with no direct European flights.

[Rynetwo]

Originally Posted by Sean1187

BA does not provide double daily service to AUS. They only fly in once a day and fly out once (That's not double daily). AUS also has more passenger traffic than SAT. I'd imagine by now that number is approaching 1M more passengers than SAT (2013, AUS had 900K more). With the tech industry in Austin and events such as SXSW, Formula 1, and the X Games, it's a more desirable destination than SA. Don't get me wrong, I love SA and would love nothing more than to see international service with a wide body plane, such as the beautiful 787 Dreamliner, but it'll be awhile until that happens.

As for the "fourth largest city in the US" quote. Please find a source that shows this.
NYC, LA, CHI, HOU, PHL, PHX are all bigger. Our overall metro population pushes us even further back into the 20s, behind cities such as San Francisco and Detroit. We are, however, in the fourth largest countyin the state of Texas behind Harris, Dallas, and Tarrant.

Again, I hate to be the Debbie Downer, but the article itself was full of holes. I had the same excitement when I first read it prior to seeing it here, but after further review, saw that it was incredibly flawed. The ONE thing it did have correct was the fact that we're the largest city with no direct European flights.

If I'm not mistaken a lot of the AUS passenger count being higher is because Jet Blue uses them as a mini hub and the fact that it is the capitol...

[waynechef]

The biggest issue with SAT gaining a non-stop flight to Europe is that the airport doesn't have the runway length to accommodate the flight. The airports runways are both roughly 8500 feet long. A loaded plane flying across the Atlantic from central Texas is going to need 10,000 feet of runway length or more. Austin has a 12,500 foot runway. New Orleans has a 10,500 foot runway and has had non-stop service to London in the past. I think that the airports master plan calls for the runways to be lengthened to over 10,000 feet, but that is far into the future. Until the runways are long enough, SAT will not have non-stop service to Europe, period.

[texboy]

Originally Posted by waynechef

The biggest issue with SAT gaining a non-stop flight to Europe is that the airport doesn't have the runway length to accommodate the flight. The airports runways are both roughly 8500 feet long. A loaded plane flying across the Atlantic from central Texas is going to need 10,000 feet of runway length or more. Austin has a 12,500 foot runway. New Orleans has a 10,500 foot runway and has had non-stop service to London in the past. I think that the airports master plan calls for the runways to be lengthened to over 10,000 feet, but that is far into the future. Until the runways are long enough, SAT will not have non-stop service to Europe, period.

Do you have data on a 787 or 747 to back this up? UPS and FedEX both fly wide bodies in as well. I flew on a fully loaded 757 into SAT from NY several years ago and it didn't seem to have any issues. Seeing as SA is actively seeking European routes, not sure they would be doing this without the correct runway lengths.

[waynechef]

Flying a wide body to Memphis or Cincinnati requires a lot less fuel than flying across the Atlantic from SAT. You need the added runway length to safely operate the takeoff with all the extra fuel weight, and for the weather variables that occur. Heat, wind and humidity all have a hand in the aircrafts' take off performance level. As far as Data to back this up, I don't have it at hand but I could look it up if you would like. I am going off from what my father had told me several years ago concerning this very issue. He was a 747 pilot for 20 years.

[waynechef]

For Texboy; Here is some data concerning the 747.

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/com...s/7474sec3.pdf

The runway take off length requirements start on page 14.

[waynechef]

Again for Texboy; here is some data for the 787.

http://planes.findthebest.com/l/293/...7-8-Dreamliner

"A required take-off field length of 10,300 ft is one of the very longest of any fixed-wing aircraft, limiting use to only the largest airports."

I hope this helps.

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by Sean1187

BA does not provide double daily service to AUS. They only fly in once a day and fly out once (That's not double daily). AUS also has more passenger traffic than SAT. I'd imagine by now that number is approaching 1M more passengers than SAT (2013, AUS had 900K more). With the tech industry in Austin and events such as SXSW, Formula 1, and the X Games, it's a more desirable destination than SA. Don't get me wrong, I love SA and would love nothing more than to see international service with a wide body plane, such as the beautiful 787 Dreamliner, but it'll be awhile until that happens.

2013 numbers: AUS=10,017,958 passengers; SAT=8,252,330

Thus, AUS had 1,765,628 more passengers travel through its airport than SAT in 2013 (almost 5,000 more per day). Furthermore, AUS had an annual growth rate of 6.23% versus 0.11% for SAT.

[sakyle04]

Originally Posted by Sean1187

As for the "fourth largest city in the US" quote. Please find a source that shows this.
NYC, LA, CHI, HOU, PHL, PHX are all bigger. Our overall metro population pushes us even further back into the 20s, behind cities such as San Francisco and Detroit. We are, however, in the fourth largest countyin the state of Texas behind Harris, Dallas, and Tarrant.

My original post was sarcastic. Should've indicated. My bad.

Laughable that we're 4th, especially when the "7th largest" claims are so intellectually dubious (however statistically accurate they are).

*walks away whistling*

[sakyle04]

Crazy stuff. And gap is only growing.

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

2013 numbers: AUS=10,017,958 passengers; SAT=8,252,330

Thus, AUS had 1,765,628 more passengers travel through its airport than SAT in 2013 (almost 5,000 more per day). Furthermore, AUS had an annual growth rate of 6.23% versus 0.11% for SAT.