By Gary Wonacutt
San Diego International Airport (SDIA) is in a convenient downtown location largely because the tourism industry, including the downtown convention bureau and hoteliers, pushed hard to keep it there in a city-wide vote. However, these groups have overlooked the eventuality of SDIA reaching capacity. Over the decades, the number of operations has approached capacity, only to drop off due to global events like the 2008 economic crash and the 2021 pandemic. Once again in 2024, operations are nearing capacity.
Initially beginning at about 85 percent of capacity, the airport becomes constrained. Besides irate passengers waiting on the taxiways, there are significant consequences. The airport is surrounded by hills to the east and west and has a parking structure that decreases arrivals runway length. Coastal weather also leads to one of the highest number of missed approaches per operation in the US. Recently, an incident occurred when an aircraft was cleared to cross the runway at the same time another was cleared for takeoff. Fortunately, the aircraft was able to stop by hitting the brakes hard. Such incidents might increase as the airport becomes constrained. The Airport Authority, supported by the FAA, may maximize operations or may decide to limit the number of operations before there are too many issues.
SDIA’s capacity is around 290,000 annual operations, or about 47 operations per hour. This capacity can also be reported as 794 operations per day or 23,820 per month. San Diego’s seasonal tourism increases operations during summer months, which makes reporting on an annual basis a misrepresentation. It is far more realistic to talk about hourly, daily or monthly capacity.
So, where is the number of operations at SDIA today compared to its capacity? For example, in the summer of 2024, the number of operations during June, July and August, were, respectively, 20,027, 20,896, and 20,550. Therefore, during these three months, the operations were at 84, 87.7, and 86.3 percent of capacity.
There is also a fairly strong daily bias with Saturdays being at the low end of the operations. The peak day of the week varies, but the peak on average is about 7 percent greater than the weekly average.
The next question is taking all of these factors into consideration, when will the number of operations exceed the capacity, or how quickly are the number of daily or monthly operations increasing? The number of operations increased rapidly following the pandemic from a low of 45,363 to the most recent quarter of 60,492, or about 85 percent of capacity. Adding the daily bias pushes this number up to about 92 percent of capacity. If the number of operations continues at its current rate, it will be at 100 percent of capacity in Q1 2028. But long before that date, during the summer months, there will be substantial slowing and disruption of operations at SDIA.
There is one other consideration. While the Terminal 1 project was being sold, the claim was that the new gates would not add to the number of operations. But, that is not the case. The number of operations can be increased by using more gates for nighttime arrivals and storage, replacing daytime arrivals with daytime departures. Historically, SDIA had 51 gates, enabling 51 nighttime arrivals, increasing total operations to 835 daily. Currently, 19 gates are out of service due to Terminal 1 construction, reducing total potential operations. Once Terminal 1 is completed, with 62 gates, potential daily operations will increase to 856, raising annual operations to 316,500. But, there must be a way to get these aircraft out in the morning hours.
The Airport Authority rarely addresses the inevitability of reaching capacity. CEO Kimberly Becker claims the capacity at 290,000 annual operations will occur in 2035 or beyond, but practical capacity is reached when demand exceeds available slots. Early morning congestion with many departures scheduled between 6:15 am and 7:00 am causes delays, which will worsen with the new terminal and additional gates.
As SDIA nears capacity, tourism growth may be limited, possibly leading to efforts to eliminate the curfew. Debates and lawsuits could arise, influenced by the CLSSY SID, which moves nighttime departures near South Mission Beach. The pressure to remove the curfew might eventually prevail, with the CLSSY SID also affecting neighborhoods like Loma Portal, Pt. Loma and Midway even worse than the ZZOOO SID.
In summary, SDIA’s convenient downtown location has its downsides, with capacity issues looming. Tourism and local industries must prepare for the impact, and discussions on eliminating the curfew will likely intensify as the airport expands. My prediction is that this will all come to a head in 2028 when the Terminal 1 is completed, but beginning in the summer of 2025, we will see the impact of a constrained San Diego International Airport, raising the question was it really necessary to spend so much money on Terminal 1?
Gary raised the question “was it really necessary to spend so much money on Terminal 1?”
Try flying Las Vegas on a Friday afternoon and see if you can answer your own question.
In any event, what’s the alternative? While I would rejoice at the relocation of the airport, San Diego voters emphatically rejected the most recent attempt to move the airport. Even if a decision to move the airport were made tomorrow, it would take 20 to 25 years to find a site, conduct the necessary environmental review and entitlements, and then build and commission the new airport. So we do nothing?
And by that time I will be dead ?
The only viable option was Miramar, and the city killed that option. Brown/Tijuana is also an option, but will never happened for other reasons. We are stuck with Lindbergh and have to make that work.
The city didn’t kill the Miramar option.
The 2007 ballot measure didn’t pass.
I don’t think you know this issue and the underpinnings. I was with the Airport Authority when this initiative was active.
My family’s been here since the 40’s and worked at the airport field since built.
This city has bundled and wasted time and money with studies, proposals and ballots on how to improve or replace our airport and here we sit, 65 years later still having the same arguments.
Unfortunately I was far to young to have a voice on this issue and now I’m really to old to care.
As others have said, I’ll be DEAD before anything is done..
It’s clear you’re a very troubled person. I would suggest you get some help.
Or, perhaps you should go to Sacramento and tell the folks there you know it all and would like to presonally handle the new airport initiative.
Please DO NOT REFER to our airport after the name of an antisemitic and Nazi lover. I don’t care how long your family has worked at the airport, stop using that old f*cked up name!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL environmental review. And yet the planes increase while we fall over ourselves with electric cars and green buildings and hard scape everything in sight for development affordability sake. What an incoherent thought process.
Easy solution build a second runway parallel to existing one. Take whatever you need by eminent domain. You want a real city, you need a real airport. Our airport is not up to the standards of any other large city.
Oh, my goodness, Ricco! Why has nobody ever thought of this before? I guess those airport planners needed someone like you to suggest it.
Sigh…It’s been studied to death and would be hugely expensive and politically impossible.
Paul, do you know if the airport has ever looked to future use of vertical takeoff and landing aircraft for some traffic?
Nothing wrong with that idea, except THERE’S NO VERTICAL AIRCRAFT TO TAKE OFF AND LAND HERE!!??
What we need is COOPERATION with ALL levels of government and the military to seriously considered ALL options.
I was an executive with the Airport Authority when the 2007 ballot measure was voted down.
It essentially stated…would you vote yes to have the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority to “open” discussions with city leaders, elected federal officials and military leadership to assess MCAS for joint military and civil use?
This measure was a “test” to get an opportunity to open discussions, not a firm, binding initiative to execute such a scheme.
We studied nine (9) potential sites for a new airport and each site was incredibly flawed.
The least flawed was MCAS. It was by far the most workable site given there are numerous issues to address. If MCAS went forward, we were set to propose moving the Marines to a closed mitary base in CA, one closed during BRAC in 1996.
However, the ballot measure failed.
As a side note, there was one kook who proposed a “floating” Airport off the coast near Encinitas.
In my view, T-1 was solely executed by polotics, not by a clear understanding of the significant limitations possed by a single rwy.
Soo, as an EXECUTIVE for Aiport Authority, just how much were all of you paid for getting NOTHING DONE!!?? YOU’RE SAYING BROWN FIELD AND MCAS MIRAMAR were/are “incredibly flawed”??
Along with 7 other proposals??
If you were to evaluate the airport field TODAY I’m sure you’d say “it’s” “incredibly flawed” as well, no??
Look, if you would like to learn about this initiative and fully understand the complexities related to it, then I would appreciate you refraining from terse comments like the one you made.
While I stated that nine (9) sites were studied regarding a major initiative to develop a new SD airport, the least flawed option was MCAS.
Having been directed by state legislative officials to establish a ballot measure to discuss this option, it’s unfortunate that voters didn’t approve it.
So, if you want to lash out at those who scuttled the new airport initiative, turn to your state legislators, voters and the SD mayor at the time.
To suggest we didn’t get anything done shows how uninformed you are about this initative.
I’d be glad to “school you up” so you’d be informed and educated regarding the incredibly complex
matter of siting and building a new airport.
Most of these absurd comments are from those who know nothing about the many, complex issues that have to be addressed to successfully create a new airport.
The issues range from airspace, noise, environment, transportation, navigation, land use, etc. The list goes on.
I have a very clear perspective on this as well as a strong opinion about what’s transpired, but I can’t “voice” it here.
I’m certain several of the key players would be unsettled by what I would say, and perhaps more so, what I would expose.
If you respond again, please do so in a civil way. Your accusation wasn’t appreciated by me. Also, if you’re going to lash out, make sure you’re informed.
I would have to respond that the effort to relocated SDIA was flawed from its inception.
The path chosen for identifying sites resulted from a decision to make a purely technological methodology. Anyone looking at the history of SDIA should have known that the only solution for relocating the airport was going to be a political solution. In fact, the head planner for the effort said repeatedly that the only solution was a technological solution. What we ended up with was a solution (i.e., the preferred solution that was placed on the ballot) proposing a joint use of Miramar with the marines that was, very clearly, a loser from the git-go. No one was going to go against the wishes of the marines during a time of war. Add in the political might of the people of La Jolla and Scripps Ranch and there was never any chance of the ballot proposition passing.
Hey Skyking (as a kid I used to watch that show) — if you ever wish to send us a longer post / rant / or whatever under your real name (or at least so that the administrator sees it and keeps it confidential, that’s okay too) about the airport, its recent history or on other airport related issues, please go ahead.
Geoff, sorry to take so long to respond but I’ve been on jury on a major felony trial and just haven’t had the time.
The problem with VTOL at SDIA is that the space constraints are such that including that traffic probably couldn’t be feasible. There are only 640 acres, which is ludicrously small for a major hub airport. Tampa International Airport, which is roughly equivalent to SDIA in terms of number of operations, passenger emplanements, etc., is 3,300 acres. There’s just so much you can do with a footprint that small.
Of course, if you were thinking of an exclusively VTOL airport, that’s a different story, but I don’t recall it ever being studied.
Here’s one observation:while driving along Pacific Highway I observed the new unfinished 4-story parking structure which takes up quite a slice of our waterfront … and it is one of the ugliest structures this side of Brawley. Wow, what a lack of imagination in design. Okay, it’s not finished, but what can they do with what they’ve created? Install hanging gardens?
They’ll probably put art or something on it id imagine
Worse than that, what they did to the historic and classic view coming out of the airport and seeing palm trees and the bay beyond is a crime. It was truly unique.
You’ve got theses planes interfering with
the people who live in Point Loma. Causing unnecessary noise! And not sticking the the flight plan and flying right over the Point
and even as far as the Wooded area. This has got to stop!
This will never stop because it is built into the system.
Calm down Woody! All cities need an airport, this one was there before you were born. Move to La Jolla if its such a problem.
And if they eliminate the curfew; are you still good?
I agree you knew it was there when you move there!
Some residents decided to move to the area after the airport was already built
IFR aircraft don’t just do random stuff. They fly as directed by ATC, either by flight plan or voice direction. After a certain time, all departures fly an initial heading of 290, which directs them away from residential areas and over Mission Bay to the greatest extent possible. They then don’t turn again until over the ocean and are gaining altitude at that point.
Woody I agree wholeheartedly with you. I lived in Point Loma in the 60’s and 70’s. It has gotten out of hand with the traffic around the airport and the planes. The pollution from the planes is terrible. If you live in Point Loma you know what I’m talking about with the black spot on the windows and houses. This should really put someones undies in a bundie but I think it should only be Point Loma home residents that vote on the status of the airport. One interesting fact is the first home that was built in Point Loma was there BEFORE the airport.
Are you the one who is known as Woody from The Wooded Area?
Yea good luck there on that. Spend how many billions and only one runway? Are these people crazy? There going to increase flights by pushing curfews back. This is about money folks. Not your neighborhoods.
The reality of the situation is that there will be NO changes to location or departures until there’s a CRASH!!
Sadly, death is a great motivator!!
Too many planes at night already over my head I’m 8n a tent by the river
Obviously Terminal 1 is being overbuilt since the single runway is limited. It will make travel easier for passengers, but at what cost/delays vs. improvements?
While the Airport Authority states no flight increases with new gates, Gary is correct that more gates equals more flights at prime time, putting the runway over capacity. If the Authority is correct on numbers of flights with more gates (which is pretty laughable), delays will happen in peak times along with the potential for safety issues instead of being spread out flights and/or airlines may switch flights to larger equipment in the more desirable times.
If there is a quest to relax or eliminate the curfew, it would have to involve the operating only the quietest aircraft in the expanded hours. The community must have a seat at the table if lifting the curfew is discussed.
The night departure path has been at SAN for years and the object is to lessen noise for the most people. PL and OB take the brunt of aircraft departures for 13.5 hours and the nighttime departure is only in effect for 1.5 hours. The path goes over parks, open water and cone of noise goes over unpopulated Mission Bay, etc. instead of over fully populated PL/OB. Maybe it could be tweaked a bit with a left turn when going over the Robb Field, but the real way to cut noise is to have the airlines switch aircraft in those hours to the latest 737MAX and 319/20/21 neo aircraft.
They need to start planning for the next phase of expansion elsewhere. The airport shouldn’t be operating there in the next phase of expansion or at least there should be an additional airport built for full service airlines. Southwest and all other ULCCs can stay at the current airport at a reduced capacity similar to Dallas Love Field and Fort Worth Airport serving the >1M population. San Diego is a retangle-shaped city mostly expanding in north and south direction and SAN is situated ideally for the south/SW part. Miramar is the prime location only if the owner wants a move in the next decades. Brown Field is prime for big airlines as it will be easier for passengers to cross into Mexico or Tourists from Mexico can hop on US flights quickly. The surrounding Brown Field area is mostly industrial tenents so noise is quite negligible unless envir conservationists jumps in and blocks it.
In cc coming planes begin tbeir descent over my back yard. It slows to what is not..but appears to be a stop. In the meantime I lose wifi connectivity or at least my voice on my cell is garbled. A plane lands about once a minute all day . I live in Skyline…..Cox has no solution.
I mean, increasing the cost to fly into and out of San Diego would keep you from reaching capacity. It’s already prohibitively expensive to live here… might as well make it prohibitively expensive to travel to or from here. Then when our tourism economy crashes, and we have even more homeless and even fewer businesses, no one will come here, and the flight prices will come back down.
My guess is that the tourism industry and others will push hard for the curfew to be contracted, or possibly eliminated. They will claim that hundreds of millions of dollars will be lost annually with lost operations, which will be true. I think it might come down to a city-wide vote as was the case for moving the airport.
Mr. Wonacutt’s article discusses SDiA’s capacity issues very well.
As a retired management executive with the SDCRAA, he doesn’t mention the primary factor limiting airport capacity – it’s single 9,4001 foot runway.
The studies done by Rincon Associates in the early 2000’s documented the fact that air travel demand with increased area population would have the terminal capacity curve and runway capacity curve intersecting in 2022.
Such is the case now. without question, the number of operations is directly proportion al to runway capacity.
If the curfew is lifted, it’s clear that additional runway capacity can be gained. But, this will be huge challenge from a plotical perspective. The groundswell of support needed for such a change will not be there making this issue one that will likely be dismissed. We’ll see.
Based on the information Mr. Wonacutt presented, did it make sense to execute a $3B terminal expansion given the the very real capacity issues surrounding the single runway?
Many questions, very few answers.
Airport
So I guess we can conclude Rachel Laing was in fact gaslighting everyone on social media a couple years ago when castigating folks and telling them they were wrong to think there would be an increase in flights and potential for pressure against the current curfew. Shocker.
Homes on both sides of the runway have been upgraded via the “quiter homes” program. One of the documents was an airspace agreement. There were no restrictions on the time of airport operations. I wondered at the time how long it would be until the curfew was done away with.
A more pressing question is what happens when the one runway has to be closed for repairs? There is nowhere else to land. The surface is old and will need new concrete soon — nobody knows exactly how soon but when chunks start coming loose it will become unsafe for takeoff or landing. It typically takes at least 3 months to rebuild a runway, during which time there will be no operations at SAN unless there is another place for planes to land. Currently, there isn’t.
I recently had the pleasure of speaking with someone on the Airport board and she said they have no plans to renovate the runway because the Marine Corps has been unwilling to talk about moving their recruiting center so that a parallel runway can be built.
Imagine now what it will be like when the one runway at SAN becomes unserviceable, which could happen in 5 years or it could happen tomorrow. (Presumably commenter Woody will still be alive tomorrow and thus might care.). Will anyone be happy driving to Orange County or L.A. to fly? Well, that’s what’s coming.
The runway was rebuilt just 5 years ago. They did it overnight and closed the field during the curfew – so no arrivals were available. They did it a piece at a time and finished on budget and on schedule. It not only has fresh pavement, but a state of the art lighting system.
I don’t know who you spoke to, but the issue regarding a second parraell runway has far less to do with MCRD as it does with SD residents, mostly PL, rejecting additional and increasing operations.
I can assure having been involved with the 2007 ballot measure to identify a new airport site, that there is no political support, or otherwise, for a second rwy at Lindbegh. Additionally, the noise studies done at that showed noise contours far greater than acceptable standards placing even greater jeopardy on asecond rwy initiative.
And, there are other significant issues re: airspace, instrument approaches, glide slope issues landing from the east, etc. that preclude implementation of a second rwy.
Frankly, when I was there, we didn’t achieve the objective to identify a new airport site for SD.
The Denver model was what we were strongly evaluating.
Mark, good to hear from you. Hope you are well.
Not only is there no political will abut the practical obstacles to a second runway v. the added capacity of a second runway pretty much preclude one ever being built. The most optimal solution, even if the Airport gets MCRD, is an “open V” configuration with the narrow base of the V located near the east end of the existing runway. There just will not be enough land for two parallel, independent runways without taking additional land from such uses as the old Midway post office site (now new housing), navy housing off Barnett, etc. We estimated that the closed V runway design would only add about 30% capacity to the runway. Simply not enough bang for the buck and for the amount of heavy lifting required to implement it.
Reminder from Editordude: Please dear readers — refrain from calling the San Diego Airport after its former name, for a man who was antisemitic and Nazi lover. It’s correct name is San Diego International Airport but just call it the airport or the San Diego Airport. I see references to the old name all the time in the local mainstream media by reporters who should know better.
Back in 2015:
https://www.atkinsrealis.com/en/projects/san-diego-airport-runway-9-27
Great piece, Gary, good information for everyone.
All I know is that I refused to participate in the Quieter San Diego program because the airport required everyone to sign an avigation agreement. Here is what that is:
“An aviation or avigation easement is a legal agreement in which property owners surrender air rights over their property to the government,” says Alex Capozzolo, co-founder of Brotherly Love Real Estate in Philadelphia. This type of easement restricts property owners from building over a specific height and waives their right to file a suit against the pilots or owners of an aircraft. It also limits the liability of airline/aircraft operators.”
So, if they try to change that curfew, I won’t allow any planes to fly over MY house.
It’s too late for this but I believe that there was sufficient room at Liberty Station to build a runway and make it all cargo. By moving the cargo there would have been more room for passenger planes and a new terminal. But the government made more money by selling to a developer building ugly condos and apartments. What do you guys think?
Doesn’t the city own Liberty Station? I don’t believe they sold it to developers.
Yes, but maybe not for much longer — see our post on this.
https://obrag.org/2024/12/city-may-lose-ownership-of-liberty-station-unless-it-shows-signs-of-development/
Good I hope it is lifted I mean planes can fly into the airport at all times necessary the fat cats in La Jolla and Pt Loma can feel the pain oh well lol
There is a dumbass comment. Point Loma is full of regular people. To write off the whole area as “fat cats” demonstrates an amazing ignorance of who lives here. La Jolla too for that matter.
True that. I know several “fat cats” that wouldn’t go near La Jolla or Pt. Loma…Living within a particular zip code doesn’t make you a “fat cat” you just live in a particular area..
The exception maybe being RSF..:)
It is daft to talk about the useless airport referendum. That thing was a dog that won’t hunt. Why? Because the county/airport authority has exactly zero control over Miramar… a military base the federal government is not giving up.
Our chance to get Miramar was when BRAC was going on and the federal government was actively pursuing either a turn over or joint use. The voters then rejected it and the Marines replaced El Toro with it. It’s done.
Please send the Rag administrator a real name.
Can ANYONE explain why San Diego, FLUSH with Real Estate people is SOOO BAD AT NEGOTIATING REAL ESTATE DEALS!!???
What are you even talking about?
Apparently your NOT a native or you’d KNOW what I’m talking about.
Planes are a lot quieter now than they used to be, even into the mid 1990s. I, 1994 lived at Second St. and Fir, otherwise known as one of the apartment complexes that whiz by under every plane landing at SAN before it crosses the 5. For the entire year I would sit by the pool and look at the underbelly of planes and had to pause conversations and phone calls for each plane, as they were incredibly loud. When I’ve been back to the neighborhood recently, they seem much quieter. That said, every plane taking off over Liberty Station seems loud.
Hey Craig,
First, as a retied SAN executive and someone who is following, as best I can, the new terminal, operations and initiatives led by the SDCRAA, I haven’t heard about pressure to discontinue the curfew that’s been established for many, many years. But, knowing the politics of running the airport and other factors, maybe management is considering cancelling the curfew. I can assure you, if they do, the backlash from those in Point Loma will be significant.
Now, as a retired Naval Aviator with an ATP, I can comment on your remarks about noise from both arriving and departing aircraft.
As you may know, the commercial aircraft today have high-bypass turbine engines which are infinity more quite that the axial-spool engines of the past. Also, aircraft that are on approach to landing are at their lowest power setting until touchdown and aircraft taking off are at their highest power setting climbing out. Obviously, more noise is generated when the power setting is at its highest.
Even with the noise abatement climb out from SAN (a steep climb angle after t/o), the high-bypass engines still produce a good bit of noise. So, I’m sure the residents of Point Loma still feel the disturbance, but at least it’s a bit more tolerable.
BTW, you should know your tax dollars and mine support an FAA program to retrofit homes in Point Loma with special dual-pained windows designed to mitigate engine noise from aircraft. It’s called the Quieter Homes Program. I’m sure you can learn about it from the internet. In some cases, historic homes get additional money for windows that are architecturally suitable for a particular residence. I’m sure most don’t know about this.
Believe me, I heard from many PL residents in my days who complained of aircraft noise while assigning blame to us, the airport operator. And, the stories go even further.
Anyway, let’s hope the Airport Authority doesn’t cave in and eliminate the noise curfew that’s in place.
The airport should have been moved. What city in the world has an airport in the very heart of the city? I know the reasoning… it would cost more to move it… and the downtown hotels didn’t want it moved. San Diego will never be a world class city. It needs a well planned rapid transit system like all major cities in the world that includes all areas of San Diego. Buses are not the answer. They just add to the traffic. We have island neighborhoods cut up by freeways. Look at Mission Valley…thousands of more cars added. Such poor planning. We need rapid rail system, a subway, a combo of those….like all great cities. A rail network to Miramar open space would have been amazing great solution the the airport.
On a personl note my property taxes are $14,800 a year….and now I have jets taking off over my house from early moring till late at night.