Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Political Maneuvering Begins For SAN....  
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2683 times:

And away they go. Off go the politicians to F up another new airport needed in Southern California...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050405/news_1m5airport.html

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2604 times:

I dont understand what SAN is trying to do. Everytime I visit SAN, I have never seen the taxiways crammed with more than 2-3 planes waiting to take off. Is it really that overcrowded at SAN? I mean, be honest here.

What exactly is wrong with the ops at SAN? I think the airport is fine and doesnt really need any expansion or the need for a 2nd SAN airport. Besides, whos gonna pay for it if a 2nd SAN airport was to happen?



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2340 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2593 times:

I don't understand the need either. The current airport's close proximity to downtown, sights, trolleys can't be beat. It's perfect for daytrips. I can fly in and be at Coronodo beach in about 45 mins.

I wish they'd put some money into adding more gates to T2's newer concourse(So HP can expand)



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlineTrvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2564 times:

Completely ridiculous. These politicians wouldn't know good planning if it hit them in the head. Now they're using false patriotism to make sure that San Diego is screwed over for another 50 years.

Luckily, whatever the legislators do, it probably won't affect the BRAC decision.

Aaron G.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 2497 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 1):
I dont understand what SAN is trying to do. Everytime I visit SAN, I have never seen the taxiways crammed with more than 2-3 planes waiting to take off. Is it really that overcrowded at SAN? I mean, be honest here.

A single runway airport can support only 61 gates, assuming dual full length taxiways. San Diego has 45 gates and 1 1/2 taxiways. It has a vehicle access traffic level of D at peak times, F being the worst. San Diego had 20 gates in 1970, 31 in 1978, 45 in 1998, will have 55 by 2007. the roadways barely support 45 gates and there is no way to improve it. The problem isn't Harbor Drive, it access from the freeways. A North terminal is impossible without a full length North Taxiway. A North Taxiway would eliminate the glideslope and also require the aquistion of land from MCRD. Do the math.

As far as what you saw, you arrived at an off peak time. San Diego is very close to maxing out.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2431 times:

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 2):
I don't understand the need either. The current airport's close proximity to downtown, sights, trolleys can't be beat. It's perfect for daytrips.

Agreed!! It is only a 5 minute bus ride between SAN and downtown SAN. No problem there! This is why I take MOST of my day trips to SAN.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 4):
As far as what you saw, you arrived at an off peak time. San Diego is very close to maxing out.

I have arrived into SAN many many times and different times of the day. Ive arrived at 9am sometimes, 11am-1pm most of the time, and 3pm once. I fail to see how SAN is actually maxing out. If SAN was maxing out, it would be having the operations the size of SEA where it does get crammed up all day on departures.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineSan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4941 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2371 times:

I have to agree with Trvlr.

SAN is growing and will continue to grow, and the current airport, much as I like it, just isn't going to cut it in a few years. This type of thing detailed in the article is why I, even at my young age, am already pretty much turned off to politics.

Of course, there is also almost nothing I can do about it except hope the Commision and San Diegan voters make a good choice in 2006.

San747



Scotty doesn't know...
User currently offlineNZ767 From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 1620 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2348 times:

Speaking of SAN, who allowed that multi-storey carpark to be built at the eastern end of the runway.
I'd heard about it but couldn't believe how close it actually was until I went past there on the freeway a few months back.  boggled 


User currently offlineUAL-Fan From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 374 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2328 times:

The city of San Diego is teetering on the brink of Bankruptcy and has no business even thinking about a new Airport right now. It's a city run amok with a city Government that is corrupt beyond belief.

How will we pay for this thing? The city can't even afford to fill potholes in the streets! They are not allowed to issue bonds anymore until they get their financial house in order.


User currently offlineBridogger6 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 710 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2290 times:

Quoting NZ767 (Reply 7):
Speaking of SAN, who allowed that multi-storey carpark to be built at the eastern end of the runway.
I'd heard about it but couldn't believe how close it actually was until I went past there on the freeway a few months back.

No kidding, I have non-reved to San Diego many times these past few weeks, am always sure we're gonna hit the dang thing!


User currently offlineTrvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 21
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week ago) and read 2255 times:

How will we pay for this thing? The city can't even afford to fill potholes in the streets! They are not allowed to issue bonds anymore until they get their financial house in order.

The city is in big trouble, definitely. But lucky for them, building a new airport is not an overnight thing--they will have the ability to do some financial planning. Additionally, the land that the current airport sits on is some of the most valuable in San Diego County. Sell that off piece by piece and you could finance quite a bit.

Aaron G.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 1 week ago) and read 2243 times:

Quoting NZ767 (Reply 7):
Speaking of SAN, who allowed that multi-storey carpark to be built at the eastern end of the runway.
I'd heard about it but couldn't believe how close it actually was until I went past there on the freeway a few months back.

It's a non issue. It's not in the OFZ.

The city of San Diego is teetering on the brink of Bankruptcy and has no business even thinking about a new Airport right now. It's a city run amok with a city Government that is corrupt beyond belief.

How will we pay for this thing? The city can't even afford to fill potholes in the streets! They are not allowed to issue bonds anymore until they get their financial house in order.


The city has nothing to do with it. They aren't running the airport, nor do they have the authority to do anything about it.

I fail to see how SAN is actually maxing out. If SAN was maxing out, it would be having the operations the size of SEA where it does get crammed up all day on departures.

And how many runways does SEA have???? Two close parallels, plus room for a third. San Diego has 1, and no room for a second and too much terrain for a close parallel. Get over your emotional attachment. Besides, Miramar already has rail within 100 feet of where the terminals would go.

Note the capacity differences:

Seattle:

http://www.faa.gov/events/benchmarks/DOWNLOAD/pdf/SEA_2004.pdf

San Diego:

http://www.faa.gov/events/benchmarks/DOWNLOAD/pdf/SAN_2004.pdf



I know you don't get some of this, but you will when you go to buy an airline ticket in 10 years. Then it will be too late, assuming a new airport is not in the works.

[Edited 2005-04-07 09:23:12]

User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2150 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 11):
And how many runways does SEA have????

2 of course, I worked in SEA with AS. Its a no brainer. The 3rd runway is still in debate right now and it has taken over 10 years for this whole project to get going, build it and so forth.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 11):
San Diego has 1, and no room for a second and too much terrain for a close parallel.

And thats fine. Thats how SAN is set up. I dont see any air carriers complaining about anything. Thats a non-issue.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 11):
Get over your emotional attachment.

Emotional? You think Im being emotional over an airport? Puhlease! You make it sound like I am falling in love with a piece of land with an airport on top of it with buildings and want to marry it. Emotional? Hardly!

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 11):
Besides, Miramar already has rail within 100 feet of where the terminals would go.

Ok, but does that rail go from Miramar to downtown SAN? I didnt think so. Who is going to pay for all of these projects? Im pretty sure that the citizens of SAN isnt going to be thrilled for another tax increase. Im also pretty sure that the city of SAN has alot to do with the airport because they probably do some funding to the airport. Its pretty obvious.

SAN is fine, theres nothing wrong with it. Dont fix something thats not broken. Nobody is complaining about SAN, with the exception of that multi-parking building that was mentioned earlier....



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2081 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 12):
Ok, but does that rail go from Miramar to downtown SAN? I didnt think so. Who is going to pay for all of these projects? Im pretty sure that the citizens of SAN isnt going to be thrilled for another tax increase. Im also pretty sure that the city of SAN has alot to do with the airport because they probably do some funding to the airport. Its pretty obvious.

1. The rail leads to the Amtrack/Coaster rail line already in place and in use and runs not only to downtown but north to LA. The rails are active for moving military assets and are used on a regular basis, and yes, they go straight to downtown.

2. Local taxes are used for roadway access, the airport itself is paid for by bond issuance which is repaid through airline rents. Security systems are paid for with PFCs already collected at the maximum rate of $4.50 per pax. No airport is paid for with tax increases. It's illegal which is why an airport's bond rating is so important. The city has nothign to do with the airport. It's owned and operated by a separate authority. Take a course in Airport Finance - It's educational.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26338 posts, RR: 76
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2072 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 12):
Ok, but does that rail go from Miramar to downtown SAN? I didnt think so. Who is going to pay for all of these projects? Im pretty sure that the citizens of SAN isnt going to be thrilled for another tax increase. Im also pretty sure that the city of SAN has alot to do with the airport because they probably do some funding to the airport. Its pretty obvious.

First off, the rails connect straight to downtown, as previously said. Second, NKX is just off a major interstate highway with excellent access. Third, it has a 12,000 x 200 runway and an 8000 x 200 runway. Fourth, there is plenty of land, hangars and taxiway space. Fifth, the area is not built up. Finally, several years ago, the whole place was offered to the City of San Diego for free (or nominal amount like a dollar or something) and the City passed. The government moved the Marines from MAS El Toro down to Miramar and closed El Toro.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineN200WN From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 784 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2036 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 1):
I dont understand what SAN is trying to do. Everytime I visit SAN, I have never seen the taxiways crammed with more than 2-3 planes waiting to take off. Is it really that overcrowded at SAN? I mean, be honest here.

I don't know...but everytime I'm in SAN (a few times a year), the place is a madhouse. I love the current location for the scenery and the convenience, but in the future it will really stifle the economy of the region. Boeing7E7 has it right.

I think Miramar is the best location for a new airport to serve San Diego County. The other sites mentioned have their own problems. Lots of mountains/terrain/fog at the Camp Pendleton site, and Borrego Springs is just too far out in the desert over some very rugged country, and it's an island in the middle of a huge state park.

I think it's going to come down to three sites...the current location with expansion in to the neighboring MCRD, Miramar, or North Island.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2018 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
Third, it has a 12,000 x 200 runway and an 8000 x 200 runway.

If the Airport gets it, there will be two spankin' new 12,000 x 200 footers with CAT III ILS capability. The south runway needs to be about 1,000 feet further south than where the 12,000 footer is and they need 4,300 feet separation. ALSF-2 lighting, SMGCS, the works.

Think a mini version of DFW with 4 - 30 gate concourses in the center of the runways and a roadway from the 15 through the center of it and then to the 805. Cargo access from the 52.

[Edited 2005-04-08 07:21:30]

User currently offlineTWA902fly From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 3121 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (9 years 3 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1947 times:

My opinion is that once a new airport is built, this one will still be the prestegious one to fly to. Any other location wouldn't be as good as SAN. I think they would have a hard time convincing airlines to move to the new airport. I think congestion at SAN wont be relieved, just any expansion process will have to occur at the new airport.

TWA902



life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1912 times:

There won't be any convincing. If SAN stayed open and a new airport was built, the present runway would be decommisioned and destroyed it would then re-open GA facility replacing Montgomery after the runway is re-built to resolve potential air space issues should the site be the obvious one, Miramar. When you commission a new runway, waivers cannot be approved on terrain clearance. The new runway would be 100-150 feet wide vs. the current 200. It would be concrete vs. asphalt and in recommissioning, the new FAA safety area standards would be applied. Pavement strength would be issufficient for anything over a BBJ. The runway would be no longer than 4,200 feet in length for proper glideslopes to each end of the runway. The perfect GA facility. It would also close from 10:00 pm to 8:00 am each day. The terminals would be demolished in favor of an open space park. The hangars and support facilities would all be on Pacific Highway where the original terminal was, just North of Jimsair.

This would prevent the same kind of "Wright Amendment" issue DFW had from re-occuring.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26338 posts, RR: 76
Reply 19, posted (9 years 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1908 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 18):
Pavement strength would be issufficient for anything over a BBJ. The runway would be no longer than 4,200 feet in length for proper glideslopes to each end of the runway.

If you want BBJ's to come in, you need to make that runway at least 6000 feet.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (9 years 3 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1860 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 14):
First off, the rails connect straight to downtown, as previously said. Second, NKX is just off a major interstate highway with excellent access. Third, it has a 12,000 x 200 runway and an 8000 x 200 runway. Fourth, there is plenty of land, hangars and taxiway space. Fifth, the area is not built up. Finally, several years ago, the whole place was offered to the City of San Diego for free (or nominal amount like a dollar or something) and the City passed. The government moved the Marines from MAS El Toro down to Miramar and closed El Toro.

For somebody who lives in France really knows SAN blindfolded, Im impressed! Im sure you got that from the post #13.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 13):
The rail leads to the Amtrack/Coaster rail line already in place and in use and runs not only to downtown but north to LA. The rails are active for moving military assets and are used on a regular basis, and yes, they go straight to downtown

OK, but when arriving pax need to go downtown, they have to pay more for a ride compared to a city bus. A city bus is $1 while Amtrak may charge more.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 13):
No airport is paid for with tax increases. It's illegal which is why an airport's bond rating is so important. The city has nothign to do with the airport. It's owned and operated by a separate authority. Take a course in Airport Finance - It's educational.

Isnt PHX being ran by the City of PHX and funded by the City of PHX? Hmmm!

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 17):
Any other location wouldn't be as good as SAN.

Im in agreement with that. Why not the U.S. Marines occupying the area next to SAN give up that land and let SAN expand there if needed. Moving SAN completely wouldnt be wise. Just because it worked at DEN doesnt mean it will work at SAN. The #1 issue that the airlines will pitch to SAN administrators will be about the location.

The bottom line comes down to whos going to pay for it, who is WILLING to pay for it and which airlines are willing to pay for it and/or willing to move to the new site? You increase the PFC rates, the airlines will scramble and flee. Look what SEA is doing with WN. WN is now reducing their schedule into/out of SEA.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 3 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1778 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 19):
If you want BBJ's to come in, you need to make that runway at least 6000 feet.

It's not a BBJ runway length design, just a pavement strength design.


User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5789 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (9 years 3 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1765 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 13):
The city has nothign to do with the airport. It's owned and operated by a separate authority.

Correct. I understand that SAN used to be operated by the San Diego Port Authority (airplanes, ships, its all the same.).

I read there is now a separate airport authority with its own board. The only connection with the city I am aware of is that the mayor of San Diego appoints 3 out of 9 board members. Other cities, the county, and Governor Arnold appoint the other members.



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 3 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1765 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 20):
OK, but when arriving pax need to go downtown, they have to pay more for a ride compared to a city bus. A city bus is $1 while Amtrak may charge more.

So what. Won't matter if you can't get to the airport at it's present location meaning it will cost more anyway as an inefficient cost of doing business at the airport in a constrained roadway system. It won't be Amtrak providing the service either. Plans have already been looked at by SANDAG for a trolley run or Coaster run to that area.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 20):
Isnt PHX being ran by the City of PHX and funded by the City of PHX? Hmmm

Yes, it sure is being run that is. As is Denver and a multitude of other airports. With a completely different operating budget. Co-mingling of local funds is illegal, as is charging a new local tax to pay for a new airport. Some funding comes from the fed, but it is so minor in comparison to a multi-billion dollar project that it's hardly worth mentioning. Most of those funds pay for Fed maintained systems such as ATC, Approach Lights and other navigation aids. Ever heard of revenue diversion? DTW did it and people are in jail for it and they were a half step from losing the ability to charge a PFC. You cannot use airport funds for City projects and you can't use City funds for airport projects if the airport is under the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems.

San Diego does not meet these standards, and therefore is required to find a way to ensure it meets the future needs of the region. Given the land and terrain restrains at SAN, the only choice is to move or be slot allocated.

Guiding Principles for the National Airport System

The airport system was envisioned almost 60 years ago, when civil aviation was in its infancy, and it has been developed and nurtured by close cooperation among Federal, state, and local agencies. The general principles guiding Federal involvement have remained unchanged; the airport system should have the following attributes to meet the demand for air transportation:

Airports should be safe and efficient, located at optimum sites, and developed and maintained to appropriate standards.

Airports should be affordable to both users and Government, relying primarily on user fees and placing minimal burden on the general revenues of local, state, and Federal Government.


Note: A slot allocated facility is not affordable - when they say local funds it refers to roadway access to the facility as I mentioned.

Airports should be flexible and expandable, able to meet increased demand and to accommodate new aircraft types.

Airports should be permanent, with assurance that they will remain open for aeronautical use over the long term.

Airports should be compatible with surrounding communities (San Diego is not), maintaining a balance between the needs of aviation and the requirements of residents of neighboring areas.

Airports should be developed in concert with improvements to the air traffic control system.

The airport system should support national objectives for defense, emergency readiness, and postal delivery.

The airport system should be extensive, providing as many people as possible with convenient access to air transportation, typically not more than 20 miles travel to the nearest NPIAS airport.
SAN does not satisfy this requirement, Miramar is .1 miles from the business epicenter of the San Diego region - When you map out where all business are in the catchment area, the centerpoint is I-15 and SR-54.

The airport system should help air transportation contribute to a productive national economy and international competitiveness. A slot allocated facility does not meet this requirement.

In addition to these guiding principles, specific to airport development, a guiding principle for Federal infrastructure investment in general, as stated in Executive Order 12893, is that such investments must be cost beneficial. The FAA implements these principles by using program guidance to ensure the effective use of Federal aid. A national priority system guides the distribution of funds, supplemented when necessary by specific requirements for additional analysis or justification. For example, airport capacity development projects must be shown to be cost beneficial to receive major support under the Airport Improvement Program.



http://www.faa.gov/arp/planning/npias/npias2001/npias2001.htm#c1p4

For the record, there's no way to get rail actually to the airport, so in that regard, the Miramar site also trumps SAN. With regard to a taxi... How much do you think it costs someone to take a cab from say... Mira Mesa, Oceanside, Escondido? These are areas of the region SAN is responsible to for providing air service. SAN does not just serve the city, it serves the region. Furthermore, the drive time to Miramar from the furthest edges of the catchment area that SAN is responsible for are equal distant from the Miramar site.

Instead of arguing on your emotional feelings about the facility and continuing to argue why it should stay because you like where it is in all it's beauty on the bay, try arguing on fact. You have no facts, only an opinion and not a very good one at that. Do a little research on the issue. It will do you some good.

Here... Do some reading.

http://www.san.org/authority/assp/index.asp

http://www.san.org/documents/assp/Airfield101_JAH-web.ppt

I read there is now a separate airport authority with its own board. The only connection with the city I am aware of is that the mayor of San Diego appoints 3 out of 9 board members. Other cities, the county, and Governor Arnold appoint the other members.

Just like LAWA (LAX) and DFW Airport Authority.

[Edited 2005-04-09 03:33:54]

User currently offlineTrvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 21
Reply 24, posted (9 years 3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1730 times:

I'd like to chime in myself, but Boeing7E7 is saying pretty much all that needs to be said. The basic point is this: from an operational and commercial standpoint Miramar is the BEST place for a new airport. Heck, it might very well be better than Lindbergh. The ONLY downside to Miramar is political opposition from misguided NIMBYs and even crazier politicians. Here's to hoping that voters finally get a clue in 2006.

Aaron G.


25 Boeing7E7 : Or 2008... Stay tuned.
26 Post contains images Boeing7E7 : Big news tomorrow. Airport will forego studying military bases until November of this year and gain first rights claim on any military installation cl
27 Post contains links Trvlr : Boeing7E7 is right. Here's an excerpt from an article from a local newspaper (online edition). The rest can be found at: http://www.nctimes.com/articl
28 Boeing7E7 : Here's the text of the release I got in an e-mail: Airport Authority Board supports legislative delegation’s request to defer studying military base
29 Post contains links and images Boeing7E7 : This is freakin' beautiful. Airport has authority over land use around all airports in San Diego County. Got a whole bunch a political types in fits.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Are The Plans For San Bernardino Intl? posted Mon Oct 28 2002 20:41:19 by Maiznblu_757
What Is The European Job Market For Pilots Like? posted Sat Nov 25 2006 02:42:57 by JAM747
Finnair: The Door Isn't Closed For B787 posted Sat Oct 21 2006 02:32:50 by Andaman
Newly Signed Law Prohibits Military Sites For SAN posted Fri Oct 20 2006 03:04:36 by PanAm747
The Final Report From A.A.I.A.S.B For Helios B737 posted Tue Oct 10 2006 08:36:58 by A3
The Future (next 5 Years) For Southwest posted Thu Sep 21 2006 00:38:24 by N160LH
Pilots Who Are Not From The Country They Fly For! posted Mon Sep 11 2006 10:57:23 by Cumulus
Narita To The US: Not A Market For The A380 posted Thu Aug 31 2006 20:01:23 by Incitatus
The Real Reason BA Left SAN posted Sun Aug 20 2006 00:47:53 by Trvlr
The End Is Near For Air France's B743 ... posted Sun Jul 23 2006 22:15:38 by FlySSC