Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Sea-Tac's Expansion Dissected  
User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2677 times:

Fascinating article in today's Seattle Times, one I'm surprised hasn't appeared here yet. I'll break it down:

Third runway = $1.1 billion
Concourse A = $587 million
Subway system = $163 million
Other projects = $2.35 billion
Total = $4.2 billion

Planned future gates and facilities = $2 billion
Total = $6.2 billion

Initial agreement by airlines in 1999 = $2.6 billion

Blaming Southwest for trying to save money by saying "shove it" to an idiotic airport = priceless

Sea-Tac screwed up, and there are penalties for that in a free-market economy. I don't see why there should be any debate over what Southwest can and can't do.


The Seattle Times, Sunday, August 7, 2005
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...technology/2002425021_gates07.html

[Edited 2005-08-07 22:26:32]


Dear moderators: No.
46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDhefty From United States of America, joined May 2005, 599 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2645 times:

Yes, and I think a lot of our local politicians have demonstrated a knee-jerk reaction against the proposed SW move. One of the problems we have in Seattle is political stubbornness and resistance to change, even thought we also have some of the world's most creative entrepreneurs. We could certainly benefit from a second functional airport. I would like to see Paine field accept commercial aircraft as well. Multiple airports would most likely add additional businesses and economic growth for the entire area.

User currently offlineCharlib52 From United States of America, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 164 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2582 times:

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 1):
One of the problems we have in Seattle is political stubbornness and resistance to change, even thought we also have some of the world's most creative entrepreneurs.

Here here! I must admit that as a naitive Seattlite I kind of have the same feelings, so I understand. It's weird they way we see ourselves as not a global-level city (which we most certainly are...) But the time has come -- c'mon guys, DO SOMETHING!! Show some LEADERSHIP!! Sadly, though, I don't think that will happen.

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 1):
I would like to see Paine field accept commercial aircraft as well

So would I = never will happen. BFI, maybe, as the artsy hipsters and bohemians of Georgetown/SODO don't have much political capital (A.K.A. $$). Could be wrong, but my gut says no. What would actually kill the WN deal at BFI is slight general political pressure and weak politicians.

However, as much as I dred to say it, there be rich people all around PAE. They will fight down to their last dollar = won't happen. Sigh. Actually PAE and Snohomish County is really a WN kind of place. 1 million + just outside a major city with a mix of professions leaning towards blue-collar price concious. Ripe for the picking I would think.


User currently offlineStevenUhl777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2591 times:

Quoting Dhefty (Reply 1):
I would like to see Paine field accept commercial aircraft as well. Multiple airports would most likely add additional businesses and economic growth for the entire area.

It would certainly help with economic development, but then again the same issues are there as is the case with BFI: who pays for the terminal development, dealing with the NIMBYs, traffic concerns, etc.

It's also a downward spiral: unless future growth at places like BFI and PAE, etc. are strictly limited from Day 1, what would stop these communities from dreaming big as well 10-20 years afterward, adding to their tax bases by becoming direct competitors to SEA, rather than just as reliever airports? Imagine if companies shipping pax and cargo to NRT thought if they could get a better deal if NW or UA decided they wanted to operate BFI or PAE-NRT instead?

For whatever it's worth, here's my idea:

Open up a terminal at BFI, say 10-15 gates and a large apron for turboprops as well. Put a limit on the range for any incoming/outgoing flight (excluding emergency/wx diversions) not to exceed 500 (nautical) miles. Include the possibility for a monorail/light rail station whenever that service begins, probably long after all of us turn to dust.

Benefits:
* Allows QX and UAX to operate most if not all flights at a lower cost, to such cities like BOI, FCA, MSL, BIL, GEG, YVR, PDX, YKM, EAT, etc. Since WN flies between GEG and SEA using 737s, they can use BFI for this service only.
* These destinations account for a large percentage of business travellers and wouldn't necessarily have to use I-5 to reach BFI.
* Alleviates congestion at SEA, but still requires mainline carriers to remain at SEA, to cover the expansion costs that everyone agreed to.
* SEA can more actively promote international service to Europe and Asia.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 915 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2569 times:

>> Third runway = $1.1 billion

Does a block of concrete and rebar 9,000 x 150 feet (approx.) really cost $1.1 billion dollars?? I understand the high stress the runway must endure from aircraft weighing thousands of pounds taking-off and landing, but $1.1 billion is on par with an entire freeway project.

Is there some hidden cost such as soil reinforcement/conditioning or precise grading?


User currently offlineDhefty From United States of America, joined May 2005, 599 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2536 times:

Quoting StevenUhl777 (Reply 3):
what would stop these communities from dreaming big as well 10-20 years afterward, adding to their tax bases by becoming direct competitors to SEA, rather than just as reliever airports?

Well, nothing, actually. And that would be good for us all. The Port of Seattle definitely needs some competition. It's a bloated bureaucracy with very little public oversight. I certainly don't blame SW for deciding to move to a less costly site. And I hope no-one can stop them. A lot of people throw darts at Ron Sims, but he is a very capable and honest individual. The Port has a lot of clout and will no doubt try to derail him, but it is definitely in our best interests to support the BFI project. Let's keep airfares low.


User currently offlineStevenUhl777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2535 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4):
Does a block of concrete and rebar 9,000 x 150 feet (approx.) really cost $1.1 billion dollars?? I understand the high stress the runway must endure from aircraft weighing thousands of pounds taking-off and landing, but $1.1 billion is on par with an entire freeway project.

Normally, no. But, in case you're not familiar with where the 3rd runway is going in on the west side of the airport, they have to actually pile up tons of dirt first, so that they can build the runway on that. They had to buy out homes in that area and move them out in order to accomplish this. Adds insult to injury! And, to top it off, it's only going to be approx. 9,000' (I thought closer to 8,500') runway and is meant to allow double landings in low visibility conditions. So the majority of the aircraft landing on it will be QX and the likes of 737s, A320, etc. Certainly not a fully loaded Cargolux or BA or NW, etc.

I used to live in Burien when I first moved up here for the summer job at UA in '96, and that's when this project was getting started. So we're 10 years into it, and I still don't know when it's going to open.


User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4343 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2522 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4):
Does a block of concrete and rebar 9,000 x 150 feet (approx.) really cost $1.1 billion dollars??

Nope - the original estimate was $587 million in the mid-90s. However since that time, the POS has fought ten years worth of legal battles that have doubled the price.

Arrogance is a term I've heard applied to the POS people, including those at SeaTac, on a number of occasions. But to be fair, it's not like at the first meeting they said, oh this will cost $2.6 billion, then at the next turned around and said, oh by the way, we've raised it to $6.2 billion. The airlines, including WN have been made aware every time one of POS's bad estimates was raised. Doesn't excuse the almost 300% increase, but does put it in a different light.

I have my own recommendation for opening up BFI. Go ahead and build/rebuild a terminal, necessary ground support, transportation infrastructure, etc., but it starts as and stays county owned. If you want to move to BFI, you sign a contract up front that says you will pay the % of the total costs of the build out that equal your % of operatins. That way, nobody but those airlines that choose to use the facility get stuck with the various additional costs involved in operating an airport.



"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineCharlib52 From United States of America, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 164 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2517 times:

Quoting StevenUhl777 (Reply 6):
and is meant to allow double landings in low visibility conditions. So the majority of the aircraft landing on it will be QX and the likes of 737s, A320, etc. Certainly not a fully loaded Cargolux or BA or NW, etc.

Of course the new runway is still not far enough from the others to offer simultaneous parallel approaches. ATC would still have to "stagger" the approaches diagonally, which is indeed an increase of capacity, but not nearly by double. Is it worth Billions? A new $130M BFI terminal is cheap in comparison (although, in the worst weather, nobody has made the point yet I think that SEA and BFI operate as one airport basically, to protect the missed approach of BFI...so this certainly doesn't add capacity in bad weather either.)

And I would think that for an arriving, landing heavy jet, 8500' would be plenty -- JFK's 4R is only 8400'.


User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2508 times:

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 7):
Doesn't excuse the almost 300% increase, but does put it in a different light.

But every airline, like every one of us, has its breaking point. Eventually enough is enough, and Southwest is just saying it doesn't want to make Sea-Tac its most expensive airport when BFI is right next door. That's smart business, and all it means for Sea-Tac is that someone should be getting fired.

Quoting Charlib52 (Reply 8):
Is it worth Billions?

As previously mentioned by Searpqx, the inflated figure is mostly due to legal fees thanks to our NIMBY friends.

[Edited 2005-08-08 00:21:33]


Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineStevenUhl777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2488 times:

Quoting Charlib52 (Reply 8):
Of course the new runway is still not far enough from the others to offer simultaneous parallel approaches. ATC would still have to "stagger" the approaches diagonally, which is indeed an increase of capacity, but not nearly by double.

Thanks for clarifying that. I thought the goal was to do simultaneous parallel landings. I think SFO staggers aircraft diagonally for 28L and 28R, and SEA wanted to have that same ability.

Quoting Charlib52 (Reply 8):
And I would think that for an arriving, landing heavy jet, 8500' would be plenty -- JFK's 4R is only 8400'

And YYZ's 24L is approx. 9,000' as we were reminded of all to well this past week. So as long as they don't overshoot the runway, this new runway would allow heavys to land


User currently offlineCharlib52 From United States of America, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 164 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2468 times:

Quoting StevenUhl777 (Reply 10):
And YYZ's 24L is approx. 9,000' as we were reminded of all to well this past week. So as long as they don't overshoot the runway, this new runway would allow heavys to land

Indeed. But I think for normal ops it would be more than adequate. The Air France incident in YYZ happened in something other than I would call normal ops...but I digress, and I don't know the facts.

Thinking about the third runway at SEA, they should actually spend it at BFI. Sure, really bad weather would force some delays. But I saw some statistics that in that really bad weather, as a percentage, doesn't affect the SEA/BFI combo as much as you'd think. I'll look it up if anyone's interested. But I was surprised -- it was under 10% of the time I believe.


User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2449 times:

Quoting Charlib52 (Reply 11):
But I saw some statistics that in that really bad weather, as a percentage, doesn't affect the SEA/BFI combo as much as you'd think. I'll look it up if anyone's interested. But I was surprised -- it was under 10% of the time I believe.

"When there are low clouds (about 44 percent of the time), Sea-Tac can use only one of its two existing runways for arrivals. The result is that all arriving air traffic is directed onto one runway, which slows things down and causes delays."

http://www.portseattle.org/seatac/expansion/thirdrunway.shtml



Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineMikey711MN From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1395 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2445 times:

Quoting StevenUhl777 (Reply 3):
Put a limit on the range for any incoming/outgoing flight (excluding emergency/wx diversions) not to exceed 500 (nautical) miles.

Hmmm...I kinda doubt that WN is interested in something like this. Just a hunch.  Wink

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 7):

Nope - the original estimate was $587 million in the mid-90s. However since that time, the POS has fought ten years worth of legal battles that have doubled the price.

I wouldn't think that it's quite legit to add ten years of prior legal costs to the present cost of future construction. The net effect, however, of delayed construction requires estimators on any civil project to reevaluate the source of one's unit costs.

In this case, 10 years of inflation on wages, never mind the strained supply of contractors in the Pacific Northwest due to significant transportation spending in the region, which itself presses labor prices higher, will have quite a cumulative impact. But construction costs in the last ten years, notably in the material costs of steel and cement, also surely contribute. And don't forget about how $60/barrel costs can impact the cost of operating heavy equipment. Finally, as this has been officially proposed for the last 10 years, ROW costs have surely ballooned due to the general growth of the real estate market and likely the specific potential of condemnation proceedings in the impacted properties.

Sure, there's contingency built in to the $1.1B figure, but these factors--all very applicable--are likely driving what is often a surprising figure in "delay costs".

-Mike



I plan on living forever. So far, so good...
User currently offlineCharlib52 From United States of America, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 164 posts, RR: 18
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2427 times:

We're Nuts:

"When there are low clouds (about 44 percent of the time), Sea-Tac can use only one of its two existing runways for arrivals. The result is that all arriving air traffic is directed onto one runway, which slows things down and causes delays."

(the "quote selected" feature just stopped for me...anyone???)

Yes, thanks. Definitely shows the limitations of SEA, even with the third runway. But for *really* low weather I was referring to the SEA/BFI combo -- I'll see if I can scare up that stat....


User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2415 times:

Quoting Charlib52 (Reply 14):
Yes, thanks. Definitely shows the limitations of SEA, even with the third runway. But for *really* low weather I was referring to the SEA/BFI combo -- I'll see if I can scare up that stat....

Well BFI only has one long runway, and we've already established SEA can only use one runway in bad weather, so I imagine how bad doesn't really matter as long as the airplanes are well equiped.



Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineRwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3068 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2343 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4):

Does a block of concrete and rebar 9,000 x 150 feet (approx.) really cost $1.1 billion dollars?? I understand the high stress the runway must endure from aircraft weighing thousands of pounds taking-off and landing, but $1.1 billion is on par with an entire freeway project.

Is there some hidden cost such as soil reinforcement/conditioning or precise grading?

This isn't DFW - the land here isn't flat and there isn't flat featureless land that goes on forever. To build this runway they had to buy up hundreds of homes and bring in 100,000 dump trucks of dirt to regrade the area. Not very cheap.

Quoting Mikey711MN (Reply 13):
Quoting StevenUhl777 (Reply 3):
Put a limit on the range for any incoming/outgoing flight (excluding emergency/wx diversions) not to exceed 500 (nautical) miles.

Hmmm...I kinda doubt that WN is interested in something like this. Just a hunch.

Who cares what they're interested in? Those of us in SEA don't want some corporate headquarters in Dallas telling us how to plan our regional transportation infrastructure.


User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2328 times:

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 16):
Who cares what they're interested in? Those of us in SEA don't want some corporate headquarters in Dallas telling us how to plan our regional transportation infrastructure.

I believe Mikey was attacking Steven's silly idea.



Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineBHMNONREV From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1360 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2239 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4):
Does a block of concrete and rebar 9,000 x 150 feet (approx.) really cost $1.1 billion dollars?? I understand the high stress the runway must endure from aircraft weighing thousands of pounds taking-off and landing, but $1.1 billion is on par with an entire freeway project.

Is there some hidden cost such as soil reinforcement/conditioning or precise grading?

This is almost the exact same cost of the new 11/29 runway in STL. Same dimensions as well. But I think the cost in STL includes all of the property buyouts, IIRC...

Maybe some of the more up to date Lambert folks can confirm this....


User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1606 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2233 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Back in the beginning of the third runway at SEA thrash (early-mid 90's), other options (BFI, PAE, etc.) were studied ad naseum and expansion at BFI (and PAE) was ruled out on solid grounds.

As the Seattle Times article mentioned, a good bit of the cost escalation on the third runway at SEA was all the legal suits and environmental (re)studies. You can't blame the Port for that. Blame the NIMBY types, who bought their houses in the area long after SEA was operational.

The third runway is moving along now. Everytime I drive to catch a flight, there are huge dumptrucks going up the center lane of 518, with fill. Last time I flew out, we departed to the north and I was seated on the left side. I could see all the third runway construction going on.

If BFI gets airline traffic in the volumes talked about, it will squeeze out the general aviation (GA) activity. After having lost the Bellevue and Issaquah airports, and not having Sand Point NAS turned into a GA field, this will really hurt GA in the Seattle area. Despite what some might think, GA is very important.


User currently offline737-990 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 364 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2236 times:

Speaking of PAE, wasn't Horizon supposed to start service there about 4 or 5 years ago? Initially they were going to fly to PDX and then expand to GEG and YVR. Anybody know what happened?


Happiest is a man who has his vocation as a hobby
User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2197 times:

Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 19):
If BFI gets airline traffic in the volumes talked about, it will squeeze out the general aviation (GA) activity.

Why? GA has lived side-by-side cargo, regionals, and flight testing for years. I see no reason for mainline service to squeeze out GA. 13L/31R is not going anywhere.



Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2434 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2165 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 4):
Does a block of concrete and rebar 9,000 x 150 feet (approx.) really cost $1.1 billion dollars??



Quoting StevenUhl777 (Reply 6):
Normally, no. But, in case you're not familiar with where the 3rd runway is going in on the west side of the airport, they have to actually pile up tons of dirt first,

8.5 MILLION cubic yards of dirt to be exact! And in order to hold that "dirt" in place, they are building a 160 foot high retaining wall that has to be able to withstand a magnitude 8 earthquake. Add to this the wetlands mitigation, the removal of all non-native plant species in the area that used to be homes and re-planting with over 160,000 native plants (yes, this was part of the deal) and it all starts to add up. I had an extesive tour of the project as I have a relative working on it, and believe me, the scope of work is mind-boggling. They are re-routing streams, rebuilding roads, setting up massive water purification systems, etc. The runway itself is only a portion of the project expediture.


User currently offlineStevenUhl777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2131 times:

I believe Mikey was attacking Steven's silly idea.

So do you have a solution of your own, then? Or are you happy with WN getting their way?


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 915 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2108 times:

>> 8.5 MILLION cubic yards of dirt to be exact! And in order to hold that "dirt" in place, they are building a 160 foot high retaining wall that has to be able to withstand a magnitude 8 earthquake. Add to this the wetlands mitigation, the removal of all non-native plant species in the area that used to be homes and re-planting with over 160,000 native plants

Well.... that would explain it

>> So do you have a solution of your own, then? Or are you happy with WN getting their way?

And what's that suppose to mean?  eyebrow 

You and I both know that moving to BFI isn't WN's prefered option. No, their first choice would be the SEA expansion on budget, not moving a slew of opperations to an airport with no commercial facilities and passenger handeling capabilities. If expansion *estimate* (could easily go over during construction) triples and WN isn't liable to recieve any benefits from another $4 billion dollars in improvements, what incintive do they have to stay at SEA?

Moving to BFI isn't an easy option for WN, to the contrary, it's quite drastic and risky, showing the hardball they are willing to pay. However, by WN's estimate, once established at BFI, opperating cost could be nearly half as much (per passenger) as remaining at SEA in the future.

The same eyes that thought fuel hedging might be a good idea way waaay back in 2003 (remember those days?) are looking into the future and know that:

1. Pressure from LCC competition is liable to increase substantially as thousands of additional seats hit the marlet

2. More cost will become fixed or beyond WN's control (labor, fuel)

With that stark reality, cutting airport cost in half at a particular station is a very desirable. Let's be honest, municipal leaders can easily make counter-productive decisions in airport planning, and WN's management is most certainly not the airline that will tolerate such circumstances.

So to answer RwSEA's retort, yeah, some people in Dallas just might know a bit more about suitable infastructure than those in Seattle. Different sets of eyes can interpret data differently, and local communities have a bad habit of taking thier airport and making them shrines to the city. The smartest thing in airport planning may be getting someone from out of town to do it!

Need and want must be balanced, but so must airline's checkbooks. But that's just WN "wanting their way."  Wink

[Edited 2005-08-08 06:37:40]

25 Mikey711MN : Fair enough question...my comments were to draw attention to the relative irony of imposing political limitations on airport A to protect additional
26 Revelation : "Other projects = $2.35 billion" Yes, this must be a public works project. Who else would lump $2.35B under "Other"? I did find it interesting to see
27 Dhefty : In some ways, airports are like freeways - if you build it, it will be used, and overused. Yes, Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma, Everett, and Olympia need
28 Baw716 : Dhefty, Amen. Gary Locke was one of the few people with the foresight to see what was happening before it did and keep Boeing here before they picked
29 Post contains images PlanesNTrains : Very debatable.... In other words, it will accomodate most movements at SEA . I'm sure to a degree, "creep" has happened with the estimates. But perh
30 We're Nuts : How on earth does some stupid mileage restriction solve anything? And what is there to be solved in the first place? Sea-Tac spent too much. I've don
31 Post contains images 7E72004 : I do have to say that some improvements were needed at SEA. The central terminal looks very nice and spacious, a definite improvement over what was th
32 Canoecarrier : What would actually kill the WN deal at BFI is slight general political pressure and weak politicians. What could kill the deal are the people who hav
33 PlanesNTrains : I always am amazed how politicians use the items WE pay for as some sort of blackmail, in order for them to get their way. Kinda like the whole Medic
34 Boeing7E7 : Yes, it does. Concrete costs are off the chart with China absorbing the supply side as are Re-Bar costs.
35 Post contains images We're Nuts : Who has room? We're against a rock and a wet place; someone will have to pay.
36 Post contains links Texan : Snohomish County Council and County Exec. funded a study to determine the feasibility of commercial service at PAE. The study concluded that the airpo
37 RwSEA : Service from PAE might not be a bad idea ... and unlike WN's current proposal, it would serve a new market and free people from driving an hour each
38 SuperDash : I thought I read in the paper (back awhile ago) that Sea-Tac could still only use 1 runway during low visibility ops. The reason is that the new contr
39 StevenUhl777 : Quoting We're Nuts: How on earth does some stupid mileage restriction solve anything? And what is there to be solved in the first place? I can defend
40 707lvr : RE: The third (new second) runway at SEA, one of many, many things we hope to get right when trying again in these parts. If you have Google Earth, ru
41 PlanesNTrains : "Who has room? We're against a rock and a wet place; someone will have to pay. " The dilemma is that we all look at the cost excalation at SEA, see ho
42 We're Nuts : I want you to. I call them as I see them. All this talk of WN "getting their way"... I don't understand. Please explain it to me. When I walk into a
43 Boeing7E7 : You'd be wasting your time with nut job anyway. He thinks quoting the information on the site of an airport management group that is supposedly inept
44 Post contains images We're Nuts : You're just bitter because my name is more creative. They have their reasons, even if I don't think they can implement them well. At least I believe
45 ER757 : Well, for one thing, most other major cities had a mass-trasnit system in place many years ago. Our ass-backwards officials built roads that didn't t
46 We're Nuts : Seattle's traffic problems deserves a non-av thread all its own. But back to the issue, Sea-Tac's price gouging and WN's move....
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...
Sea-Tac Badge Office Loses Workers ID Info posted Wed Oct 4 2006 00:29:51 by NWDC10
Mystery Silence At Sea-Tac Control Tower... posted Tue Apr 18 2006 04:15:36 by Clickhappy
Ramp Tower Opens At SEA-TAC Airport posted Wed Apr 5 2006 16:22:04 by Terryb99
Sea-Tac's Expansion Dissected posted Sun Aug 7 2005 22:25:57 by We're Nuts
20 Days Till Deadline For AS Ramp SEA-TAC posted Tue Mar 8 2005 18:37:52 by AS739X
NWA Ends Cargo Flights At Sea/tac posted Mon Aug 16 2004 22:39:04 by Leneld
Sea/tac Rising Operating Cost posted Sun Jul 11 2004 06:38:41 by Leneld
Sea-Tac Airport Runway Troubles posted Wed Jul 7 2004 07:15:54 by Leneld
SEA-TAC New Concourse A Pics? posted Wed Jun 16 2004 05:06:51 by SANSCOTT744
Spotting At Sea-Tac! posted Tue May 25 2004 21:52:30 by NWDC10