Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SNA-John Wayne Terminal Expansion Approved  
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24729 posts, RR: 46
Posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5302 times:

Orange County supervisors approved a $512-million improvement project that will include a new terminal and two parking structures at John Wayne Airport.

If approved by the FAA, preliminary construction on the five-year project should begin next summer.

As part of the project the airport will implement a $4.50 PFC ticket tax.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-airport21dec21,1,3670059.story


I have to say, its somewhat funny they are expanding the facility, as the airport is still restricted under a Federal Court consent decree limiting overall flights and passenger volume.

With the current year over year growth of about 5%, the airport is expected to reach its passenger limit of 10.3 million passengers during 2007. The airport does not get any relief until 2011 when the limit rises to 10.8 million.

Airlines have been forewarned that schedule/equipment adjustments might be required in coming years to ensure the airport remains within the agreed limits.


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineHT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6525 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 5273 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Thread starter):
two parking structures

To my recent experience, these really are in need close to the main terminal at SNA. Nothing is more inconvenient than having a commuter flight out of SNA and not getting a parking spot that ensures a fast access to the terminal. Wasn´t there a while ago an automated train proposed to tlink the remote parking lot to the exisiting terminal ?

Quoting Laxintl (Thread starter):
the airport is expected to reach its passenger limit of 10.3 million passengers during 2007. The airport does not get any relief until 2011 when the limit rises to 10.8 million.

AFAIK the cap at 10.3 mn pax is an agreement with those NIMBYs who are wary about noise. With a/c getting quieter and quieter, negotiation should start to limit the number of movements rather than the number of pax.

When having a chance, I prefer to use SNA over LAX for shorthauls ...
-HT



Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24729 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5175 times:

The centerpiece of the expansion plan includes a new passenger terminal with six gates, 2,500 new parking spots and replacement of one current parking structures.

Quoting HT (Reply 1):
To my recent experience, these really are in need close to the main terminal at SNA. Nothing is more inconvenient than having a commuter flight out of SNA and not getting a parking spot that ensures a fast access to the terminal.

Actually I have found the parking at SNA quite convenient being directly connected indoors to the terminal. Assume you must have been at the long term lot, which actually will remain at its current location on the other side of the freeway.

Quoting HT (Reply 1):
Wasn´t there a while ago an automated train proposed to tlink the remote parking lot to the exisiting terminal ?

There was a proposed rail system that would link Irvine/SNA with South Coast Plaza and I believe it was a regional transportation center in Santa Ana. If I remember correctly Orange County voters turned down a billion dollar transportation bond measure a year or two ago that would have allowed for such a project.

Quoting HT (Reply 1):
AFAIK the cap at 10.3 mn pax is an agreement with those NIMBYs who are wary about noise. With a/c getting quieter and quieter, negotiation should start to limit the number of movements rather than the number of pax.

The 10.3 million cap was just agreed upon in 2002 as an amendment to the original 1985 court agreement. Its quite unlikely the authorities have the appetite to stir up things so soon with the quite wealthy neighboring communities.
I could instead see some action after the limit has been reached and upon the forced limitation of flights. At that point maybe the county would be able to get the 10.8million cap to go into affect a few years earlier.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinePHXinterrupted From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5069 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 2):
Quoting HT (Reply 1):
To my recent experience, these really are in need close to the main terminal at SNA. Nothing is more inconvenient than having a commuter flight out of SNA and not getting a parking spot that ensures a fast access to the terminal.

Actually I have found the parking at SNA quite convenient being directly connected indoors to the terminal. Assume you must have been at the long term lot, which actually will remain at its current location on the other side of the freeway.

Yeah, parking at SNA is pretty easy compared to most airports. Of course, not as easy as say BUR.



Keepin' it real.
User currently offlineRichardJF From New Zealand, joined Mar 2001, 792 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4886 times:

What's going to happen to El Toro?.
Will it just become housing or something.


User currently offlineJohn From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 1374 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4825 times:

This is all good news, but that runway needs to be longer at SNA...it's too damn short!

User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4805 times:

El Toro is gone. Completely. The runways have been torn up, the structures are gone, and probably more cookie-cutter homes will go up. Take Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner to San Diego, and you'll see the remains of the base.

One of the runways, at almost 11,000 feet in length, was decried as "too short for safe passengers use" by some of the NIMBY's.

Don't be surprised if a "neighborhood grass-roots" coalition gets together and files lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit to stop ANY expansion or change of SNA. Of all the SoCal airports, Orange County has the wealthiest and best organized "concerned citizens" living near it.

I'll believe it when I see construction starting.



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4784 times:

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 6):
Of all the SoCal airports, Orange County has the wealthiest and best organized "concerned citizens" living near it.

And that is why there is no airport at EL Toro.


User currently offlineLGBFltTrainer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 100 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4777 times:

I actually think BUR has better organized citizens...after all, BUR has been trying for roughly 30 years to get a modern facility with (gasp!) jetways, but the NIMBYs in Burbank have been stopping it everytime is comes up for consideration.

At least SNA has a modern terminal, if not longer runways...



Overt enthusiast...like that's a BAD thing?
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24729 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4735 times:

Quoting John (Reply 5):
but that runway needs to be longer at SNA...it's too damn short!

I remember reading an article in the OC Register a while back that several parties had urged the airport board to look at extending the runway, however the county felt the topic would be "dead on arrival", and would even attempt to pursue it.

Quoting LGBFltTrainer (Reply 8):
BUR has been trying for roughly 30 years to get a modern facility with (gasp!) jetways

And the sad part is the airport has received what is basically free land to build a new modern and safer terminal via the huge plot that Lockheed has turned back over to the airport authority.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineRichardJF From New Zealand, joined Mar 2001, 792 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4661 times:

Could the 787-3 in a high density arrangement concievably use SNA on flights to SFO etc....
And that a slight runway extension might be quite saleable if combined with a deal on the 1500 mile perimeter rule at LaGuardia to allow for SNA-LGA.

Nimby's have to get around too. And you have to remember their mantra...
It's all about me.


User currently offlineWedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5888 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4651 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The Amtrak station near Laguna Hills was at the end of the one of the runways at El Toro. I used to watch F/A-18's do touch'n'goes on that runway during the early 1990's.

Do you think the new terminal might have provisions for 1 or 2 international gates?


User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24729 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4646 times:

Quoting RichardJF (Reply 10):
Could the 787-3 in a high density arrangement concievably use SNA on flights to SFO etc....
And that a slight runway extension might be quite saleable if combined with a deal on the 1500 mile perimeter rule at LaGuardia to allow for SNA-LGA.

There really is not much room for a runway expansion at SNA. Besides a short overrun areas the runways and airpotr is hemmed in by the 405 freeway on one side and the 73 on the other. Besides NIMBY opposition, the cost of detouring such roads would be significant.

In regards to the the 787-3, it would not fit at the SNA gates. The 787-3 is significantly larger sized then the B757 which is the largest passenger type serving the airport with wingspan of 170ft vs 124ft and length of 186ft vs 155ft.
In addition I see absolutely no need of a larger type at the airport particularly on a business market like SFO were frequency is the key, and is currently well served.
Even if the 787 could operate at SNA, the type would only serve to hasten the arrival of the facilities maximum court decreed passenger limits. Its very likely instead airlines will be forced to offer smaller capacity at the airport in years going forward to remain within the limits.

And lastly I dont quite understand what the restrictions LGA has to with SNA. If you are suggesting the airport needs NY service, I would say for the most part such service has been a failure. Both TWA and AA have operated such services in the past and now Continental only operates a single such flight using the small 737-700.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24729 posts, RR: 46
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4631 times:

Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 11):
Do you think the new terminal might have provisions for 1 or 2 international gates?

Nope, no such plans.

There is some current talk of whom will occupy the new facility. It was once reported SWA would be interesting in its use to allow it to be separated from the main terminal and rest of the airlines.
I suppose this is a good idea considering SWA is the number one airline with the greatest number of frequencies.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineRichardJF From New Zealand, joined Mar 2001, 792 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4616 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 12):
Even if the 787 could operate at SNA, the type would only serve to hasten the arrival of the facilities maximum court decreed passenger limits. Its very likely instead airlines will be forced to offer smaller capacity at the airport in years going forward to remain within the limits.

A court decreed passenger limit cap seems incredibly wobbly as opposed to noise and jet movement restrictions.


User currently offlineSFORunner From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4579 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 2):
Actually I have found the parking at SNA quite convenient being directly connected indoors to the terminal. Assume you must have been at the long term lot, which actually will remain at its current location on the other side of the freeway.

UX flights arrive/leave from a "temporary" building at the south end of the main terminal building:

To get to it ... you've got to walk the entire length of the main terminal building, out a door, down a ramp. At this point, you're outside.

UX uses gates 12 -14 or 1-3. I forget which way the numbers run:

http://www.aa.com/content/images/aboutUs/terminals/terminal_SNA.gif

I would guess that the new terminal would replace this "temporary" building .....

[Edited 2005-12-25 01:49:13]

[Edited 2005-12-25 01:53:00]

User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24729 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4500 times:

Quoting RichardJF (Reply 14):
A court decreed passenger limit cap seems incredibly wobbly as opposed to noise and jet movement restrictions.

We are lucky we have even close to the activity today that SNA has.

As background, in the late 70s, early 80s Orange County launched what would be termed a very significant expansion and replacement of the then rather "shack" like facilities.
In order to gain approval for this largest single project in Orange County history with the exception of Disneyland, the county and opponents agreed upon via a court decree in 1985 placing limits in number of flights, hours of operation and total passenger being serviced at the new facilities. The limits were for the most part considered quite adequate for decades to come.
The country was able to get some small relief in the number of flights and passenger totals via an amendment to the decree in 2002 which further reduced the hours of operation of the facility in return.

At the end of the day, while yes restrictive, the agreement has provided for the ability to service many millions of more passengers and flights then not having been able to build the new terminal in the 1980s at all.

Quoting SFORunner (Reply 15):
UX flights arrive/leave from a "temporary" building at the south end of the main terminal building:

To get to it ... you've got to walk the entire length of the main terminal building, out a door, down a ramp. At this point, you're outside.

Not very inconvenient in my mind, considering how compact SNA is compared to much larger facilities such as LAX.
No matter what, small prop operations would require you to exit and be outside at some point.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineMcMax From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4489 times:

After months of lurking around and reading everyone's informative posts on the airlines and the airline industry, I've finally decided to join and contribute to the forums. Since this topic involves something in my backyard, so to say, I've decided to make this my first post. And, please accept my apologies ahead of time--I'm an attorney by trade, and I tend to ramble on and on about things that interest me  Smile

--Max

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 6):
El Toro is gone. Completely. The runways have been torn up, the structures are gone, and probably more cookie-cutter homes will go up.


Not quite true. While the good citizens of Orange County have indeed approved a law which makes it near impossible to build the airport (i.e., they re-zoned the land to non-airport uses), the pro-airport folks still haven't gone away completely yet. As I recall, correct me if I'm wrong, there is still one final legal maneuver left that they may attempt.

Additionally, the City of Los Angeles remains a wild card. Before James Hahn was defeated for re-election as mayor, he had written to the Navy (who owned El Toro) to request the sale of El Toro to the City of Los Angeles for development as an airport. While the Navy gave him short-shrift on this request (and OC citizens were riled to no end by this), who knows what the City of LA thinks they can get away with. As I understand though, the new mayor, Antonio Villaragosa, is proceeding with the minimal expansion of LAX rather than attempting to make a land grab in the OC.

While the physical land comprising El Toro has already been sold by the Department of the Navy to Lennar (a huge developer/home builder from Miami), the actual demolition of the runways has not yet occurred. Some buildings have been removed though. As someone who lives a little over a mile from the end of one of the runways, I am holding my breath until the first jackhammer starts destroying the runways. Until that time, the pro-airport folks aren't giving up yet.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 6):
Don't be surprised if a "neighborhood grass-roots" coalition gets together and files lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit to stop ANY expansion or change of SNA. Of all the SoCal airports, Orange County has the wealthiest and best organized "concerned citizens" living near it.

As I understand it, the groups in the local areas surrounding John Wayne Airport (i.e., Newport Beach) have already entered into the settlement agreement with the County of Orange to amend their prior settlement agreement (which permitted the original expansion and new terminal in the 1990s) to permit a rise in the annual passenger limits, and for the new expansion of the terminal. Apparently, these groups agreed to the revise settlement terms and the expansion because of the real threat the Department of Transportation was no longer going to approve any caps on flight operations any more. These groups felt this was the better alternative rather than have an unlimited expansion at SNA.

Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 11):
Do you think the new terminal might have provisions for 1 or 2 international gates?

As I understand it (my source being the Orange County Register--I can't find the exact link right now), the new expansion will have 1 or 2 gates which are international-capable, including immigration and customs facilities. About three years ago, Alaska was ready to start a non-stop flight to Vancouver from SNA, but cancelled it a couple weeks before it was to start when the DOT refused to grant final approval because of SNA's lack of international arrivals facilities (we were supposed to be on one of these flights!). I always thought it was rather stupid to require the international arrivals facilities at SNA for an incoming flight from Canada, especially since you pre-clear United States customs and immigration in Canada.

The Register reported that Alaska was interested in the international flights (I would presume to be to Vancouver, and perhaps Mexico). I also seem to recall that Air Canada has been on the waiting list to get slots at SNA for years now, but cannot begin service because of the lack of international arrivals facilities, and because slots are not that easy to come by at SNA.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 12):
In regards to the 787-3, it would not fit at the SNA gates. The 787-3 is significantly larger sized then the B757 which is the largest passenger type serving the airport with wingspan of 170ft vs 124ft and length of 186ft vs 155ft.

When the new terminal was built in the 1990s, two gates were capable of handling 767s. I think it is the two center gates, gates 8 and 9, currently occupied by America West and American, respectively. Is the 767 wingspan comparable to the 787-3's wingspan?

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 12):
If you are suggesting the airport needs NY service, I would say for the most part such service has been a failure. Both TWA and AA have operated such services in the past and now Continental only operates a single such flight using the small 737-700.

American used to run several flights a day to JFK from SNA. One of them was a red-eye, which got you into JFK early in the morning, which permitted great connections onward. I spoke to someone at the Admirals Club at SNA at that time, and they were concerned about the JFK flights because loads were not good. Given that an SNA-ORD flight was one of the "temporary" flight reductions for Spring 2006, I wouldn't plan on American adding any more flights from SNA to new destinations in the near future.



De minimis non curat lex tamen ego curao
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24729 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4452 times:

McMax welcome to a.net Appreciate your input.

Quoting McMax (Reply 17):
have already entered into the settlement agreement with the County of Orange to amend their prior settlement agreement

Correct the ammendment was entered into in 2002, and did provide for additional gate expansion.
The primary driving point of additional gates is the lack of gates for evening and early morning flights. One can see aircraft often double parked at gates during the early morning hours.

Quoting McMax (Reply 17):
As I understand it (my source being the Orange County Register--I can't find the exact link right now), the new expansion will have 1 or 2 gates which are international-capable, including immigration and customs facilities

Yes the Alaska Airlines incident is well remembered. Air Canada had also previously expresed its interest in serving the facility.

However my understanding is that the airport will not be international capable.
Apparently the Federal government was contacted whom felt that the projected activity did not warrant the granting of funding for staffing to make the facility a port of entry.
Another allowed option was for the airport and tenants to fund such services themselves via user fees, however the county concluded that the per passenger fees would have to be increased significantly and they would also receive significant opposition from airlines.


Quoting McMax (Reply 17):
Is the 767 wingspan comparable to the 787-3's wingspan?

The 787-3 wingspan is some 14 feet longer then the 767 and its lenght between 6-27ft more then the 767 depending on which version.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineHT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6525 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4339 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 2):
Quoting HT (Reply 1):
To my recent experience, these really are in need close to the main terminal at SNA. Nothing is more inconvenient than having a commuter flight out of SNA and not getting a parking spot that ensures a fast access to the terminal.

Actually I have found the parking at SNA quite convenient being directly connected indoors to the terminal. Assume you must have been at the long term lot,

While I had no problems to park my car on the preceeding weekend, on my second flight out of SNA mid October (18-OCT-2005 1449h AA 3161 to SJC) none of the 3 (?) parking structures close to the terminal (I see it as one terminal) had spaces to offer - well at least this was the official version until on my second drive-by I was able to sneak past one of the signs indicating "Lot full" for the multistorey car park opposite the terminal ... Big grin
Actually when walking across this parking structure I already made up my mind that it would be a rather easy task to add another 2 levels to that already big parking structure ...
-HT



Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
User currently offlineHighflier92660 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 672 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4287 times:

The Orange County Register has another article on the subject of SNA expansion. (registration required)

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_906461.php

In synopsis, the expansion can be defined as a 2,500 car parking lot, 6 gates and 300,000 sq.ft. of boarding space with maybe a Starbucks and a news stand thrown in. It will be done in the same architectural style as the present terminal. Nothing will be done to rectify the glaringly short 5,700 ft. runway the affluent NIMBY"S of my hometown have imposed on all of us. As for the 10.8 million passenger limit, politicians come and go, dire air transportation needs eventually have a way of taking precedence over noise issues. I have an inkling that upper passenger limit is as eventually negotiable as the contract on a sports superstar.

Over the years the myopia of SoCal transportation planning has never failed to amaze me. With the infrastructure essentially in place, the 55, 405 and 73 freeways (bought and paid for) leading to the SNA airport and millions of square feet of office space within a 5-7 mile radius, Orange County airport is a vital commerce component that is not going anywhere. El Toro (Great Park) was a hideously expensive dream that, given the economic and engineering nightmare associated with bringing it to fruition, was best left on artists drawing boards.

I just wish that someday the political inertia will exist to extend that runway another 2,500 ft. I land my Cessna 210 in "Bugtussle", Ohio on more concrete than a Boeing 757-200 here in Orange County.

[Edited 2005-12-26 18:03:28]

User currently offlineThepilot From Canada, joined Jan 2010, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4239 times:

This sounds like good news. Whenever I fly into the LA area, I always fly into SNA with airlines or by myself. Will this have any effect on the GA portion of SNA?
Thanks.



From YVR
User currently offlineWedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5888 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4199 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This is probably a no-brainer, but would it be necessarily true that adding six new gates to the terminal would free up "slots" at SNA? Perhaps the additional capacity would allow the likes of Jetblue or Air Tran to fly into SNA.

User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24729 posts, RR: 46
Reply 23, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4188 times:

Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 22):
This is probably a no-brainer, but would it be necessarily true that adding six new gates to the terminal would free up "slots" at SNA? Perhaps the additional capacity would allow the likes of Jetblue or Air Tran to fly into SNA.

Not in the cards. The airport still very much remains under its court settlement limiting hours of operations, number of flights and total passenger count.
As such, the limit remains at 85 total average daily departures for commercial passenger or cargo airlines.

The additional gates are meant more to relieve crowding due to the rapid rise in passenger numbers (more larger aircraft types being used), and also to help with the lack of late night / early morning gates which sees aircraft being double parked at gates.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4100 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 12):
There really is not much room for a runway expansion at SNA. Besides a short overrun areas the runways and airpotr is hemmed in by the 405 freeway on one side and the 73 on the other. Besides NIMBY opposition, the cost of detouring such roads would be significant.

To speak with such authority on the matter, you should at least know what you are talking about. SNA has standard RSA's and room for two 500' EMAS installations which would provide SNA with an additional 1,000' of available runway. NIMBY's argue the extension would mean larger aircraft and "more" noise. Safety, in general, says otherwise when your existing runway is under 6,000'.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 18):
The 787-3 wingspan is some 14 feet longer then the 767 and its lenght between 6-27ft more then the 767 depending on which version.

The wing span and length is not an issue. Economical range from a short runway is.


25 DeltaGuy : Any sort of aviation within that stupid county is tough to do...probably one of the most non-aviation friendly areas in the US. I understand you live
26 HT : Well, while "Economy" is one point, finding a suitable aircraft stand at an airport is another point not to be neglected. As indicated in this thread
27 Boeing7E7 : It's called a vacant gate arrangement where one or two adjacent gates are unavailable or Guage modified during use. This is done every day at just ab
28 Post contains links and images Lightsaber : I wish... I wish. But as I look down from google earth/maps, I see only about 1,000 feet if they build over the 73. But even that would make a *huge*
29 Mcmax : I agree with you it does seem like a waste to tear down El Toro MCAS. However, it's not as simple as that. As I understand it, the big commercial pil
30 Boeing7E7 : Used by Group III aircraft (737's/320's and MD-80's) meaning you can park two 787-3's that don't even exist in physical form yet at the two Group IV
31 McMax : Boeing7E7--thanks for the diagram. I now understand what you were saying. However, this would also then depend on how the gates were allocated, and w
32 Coronado990 : Personally, I'm afraid of the day Miramar becomes available in San Diego. I can see years of fighting and bickering dividing our county between "nort
33 Boeing7E7 : Stage 4 changes that. Have you seen the projected 787 and A350 noise footprints? The 85 cnel is within the fenceline and the 65 would just barely cro
34 Coronado990 : You know how So Cal politics works Boeing7E7. Stage IV does not change a child holding up a burning airplane and crying that they don't want an airpl
35 Boeing7E7 : And an airport at Miramar has about a 70% approval rating amoung voters. Passed in a landslide the last time around. The irony is that Commercial Avi
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...
Towers At SNA (John Wayne) posted Wed Jan 10 2001 06:10:14 by SOCAL Approach
SNA Terminal Expansion? posted Thu Jul 28 2005 00:22:53 by 777XI
Question About John Wayne (SNA) posted Wed Mar 16 2005 08:24:36 by Adriaticus
Airport Terminal Expansion At LPL Approved posted Tue Aug 20 2002 20:06:05 by David_itl
SWF Looking At Terminal Expansion posted Mon Dec 4 2006 22:02:20 by BigOrange
YYC Additional Terminal Expansion? posted Sat Jul 15 2006 19:59:57 by Rikkus67
LGB Terminal Expansion Gets Green Light posted Thu Jun 22 2006 21:26:43 by Laxintl
FAT-Passenger Growth Means More Terminal Expansion posted Wed May 10 2006 00:12:10 by FATFlyer
Report: MKE Discuss Terminal Expansion, 28 Gates posted Fri Apr 21 2006 21:59:19 by Vivavegas
North Air Terminal Expansion At DTW OK'd posted Fri Mar 24 2006 20:11:52 by KarlB737