Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
California Airports, Close To Capacity?  
User currently offlineSJCRRPAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2347 times:

I keep hearing that many of the California Airports are close to capacity, but what exactly does that mean? I don't work at these airports so my conclusion might be wrong, but this is my impression.

SAN -- Broken because lack of runways. Also the restrooms on wrong side of security thanks to Bin Laden. Can't figure out for the life of me why my native city doesn't get non-stop service to Europe on BA? What do San Diego people do drive to LAX? Stop over in New York? Let's get real here and have better service to America's finest city.

SNA -- Why do you SoCal people complain about this airport? Everytime I go there it seems to have plenty of room to grow. Maybe I just go there at the wrong time.

BUR -- I keep expecting the mayor to greet the plane in person. Last couple of times I went there it seemed like the WN plane I flew in on was the biggest attraction at Bob Hope International. Maybe they need a bigger terminal and more parking.

LGB - Another layed back easy going Socal airport. What's the beef here? Why don't more of the LAX flights go to SNA, BUR, LGB

LAX - 'nuff said this airport is hopping. I don't get it, does everybody like driving on the worlds biggest Freeway, the 405, why don't Los Angelenos use some of the out lying airports more?

SJC - Looks like plenty of room to grow to me, except for no parking. The most planes I've ever seen waiting to take off was four. Looked pretty cool, Hawaiian, Fed-Ex, Southwest and American I believe. I should have took a picture. Generally the flights seem to be about 5 minutes apart at least.

OAK - Seems to have unlimited potential to grow.

SFO -- Pretty busy, lack of runways and I think the international traffic likes to all come in at the same time.

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26815 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2319 times:

Quoting SJCRRPAX (Thread starter):
OAK - Seems to have unlimited potential to grow.

SFO -- Pretty busy, lack of runways and I think the international traffic likes to all come in at the same time.

Actually, OAK is the one with much more of a capacity problem than SFO. OAK only has 1 commercial runway, and it is built right on the bay. The other runways are all used for GA and really aren't long enough to handle longer flights. SFO has plenty of runway and terminal capacity. Their only real problems come when weather rolls in because their runways are not spaced far enough apart to do parallel Cat. III approaches so they basically turn into a 2 runway airport

Quoting SJCRRPAX (Thread starter):
why don't Los Angelenos use some of the out lying airports more?

The thing is, LAX is the most central airport of all of them to the population. Additionally, traffic is a pain everywhere in the L.A. area (though not as bad as the 15 and 805 have gotten in San Diego lately), so you are really trading one traffic situation for one that is farther out. Also, none of them have the facilities that LAX does or are as central to businesses. BUR is close to a lot of the film industry, but short runways and a tiny terminal hurts that idea

Quoting SJCRRPAX (Thread starter):
LGB - Another layed back easy going Socal airport. What's the beef here? Why don't more of the LAX flights go to SNA, BUR, LGB

LGB has artificial constraints on capacity because of the local noise ordinance. Basically, no more than 41 commercial flights on planes over CRJ700 sized can come in per day.

Quoting SJCRRPAX (Thread starter):
BUR -- I keep expecting the mayor to greet the plane in person. Last couple of times I went there it seemed like the WN plane I flew in on was the biggest attraction at Bob Hope International. Maybe they need a bigger terminal and more parking.

BUR's traffic has grown, but there is only so much you can do when your longest runway is 6886' long, you can only take off in 1 direction on it with any sort of weight and makes an X with the landing runway. Also, you have another NIMBY problem here in that they can't build a new terminal until something like 2015, though it wouldn't matter because the runways are pretty much maxed as it is and that airport is definatly not growing

Quoting SJCRRPAX (Thread starter):
SNA -- Why do you SoCal people complain about this airport? Everytime I go there it seems to have plenty of room to grow. Maybe I just go there at the wrong time.

Room to grow where? SNA is absolutely penned in by Irvine, Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. Additionally, their main runway is only 5700' which severly hampers what you can do out of there.

Quoting SJCRRPAX (Thread starter):
SAN -- Broken because lack of runways. Also the restrooms on wrong side of security thanks to Bin Laden. Can't figure out for the life of me why my native city doesn't get non-stop service to Europe on BA? What do San Diego people do drive to LAX? Stop over in New York?

Actually, lack of runways isn't the main problem. LGW proves that you can handle a lot more traffic than SAN does on just 1 runway. The problem at SAN is the operational issues with the runway. The runway is too short to handle heavies to Europe or Asia, specifically because of terrain issues. BA's flight to SAN couldn't succeed because they couldn't carry any cargo at all on the 777.

Quoting SJCRRPAX (Thread starter):
Let's get real here and have better service to America's finest city.

 rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl 

I almost broke a rib laughing at that. San Diego is nice, but it is no Los Angeles. Then again, I am a native Angeleno  Silly



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21583 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2275 times:

Quoting SJCRRPAX (Thread starter):
SNA -- Why do you SoCal people complain about this airport? Everytime I go there it seems to have plenty of room to grow. Maybe I just go there at the wrong time.

Hard to get to for most LA people, and if you think the 405 traffic is bad around LAX, just drive anywhere near SNA during rush hour. I arrived into SNA at 4pm, and I didn't get to Burbank until 7pm, though that did include a 1/2 hour stop for food and gas I didn't think I'd need until I got stuck for so long. The 405 and the 5 out of Orange County can be death in the afternoons.

The reason LAX is popular, outside of the connections to just about anywhere in the world, is because it's basically the easiest to get to, even when traffic is bad. Even if it takes 1 hour to get to, it would take even longer to get the other airports.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26815 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2267 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
Hard to get to for most LA people, and if you think the 405 traffic is bad around LAX, just drive anywhere near SNA during rush hour. I arrived into SNA at 4pm, and I didn't get to Burbank until 7pm, though that did include a 1/2 hour stop for food and gas I didn't think I'd need until I got stuck for so long. The 405 and the 5 out of Orange County can be death in the afternoons.

Actually, that drive takes an hour in good conditions, so 2.5 isn't THAT bad at rush hour. Also, did you take the 405 or the 5? It is actually faster to take the 5 and it should actually have less traffic at that time as the 5's flow tends to be the opposite of the 405's. Still, that is very indicative of what you and I said about LAX being the best located airport, despite what many say

[Edited 2006-02-11 10:15:02]


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21583 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2250 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 3):
Actually, that drive takes an hour in good conditions, so 2.5 isn't THAT bad at rush hour. Also, did you take the 405 or the 5? It is actually faster to take the 5 and it should actually have less traffic at that time as the 5's flow tends to be the opposite of the 405's. Still, that is very indicative of what you and I said about LAX being the best located airport, despite what many say

Yeah, I live here, I know that the 5 is the right way to go, theoretically. There was an accident on the 5, so the suggestions were to go the 405 and then cut across, but then by the time people got to the 405 near LGB, there were accidents there too. It was just a bad day.

But other days getting to Irvine aren't much better. I can see why people live in that area, because it is nice, but trying to get in and out of that area is hell.

And while you are right, 2.5 hours is "not that bad" it is still BAD in terms most of the rest of the world could understand. For example, in Tampa Bay, "bad" traffic is when a 1 hour drive takes 1.5 hours.

I was just explaining to the poster why SNA is not favored by LA residents. It is just too hard to get to, unless you live in the O.C., and even then, LAX can be easier to get to for some areas of Orange County.

If Burbank weren't so limited, it would get more traffic, as it isn't that hard to get to for anyone in the valley or in Hollywood, Pasedena, Glendale, even during heavy traffic. Surface streets get you there faster than LAX. But there's little to draw you there, with limited traffic, lack of frequencies, lack of routes, lack of parking facilities, etc.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26815 posts, RR: 75
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2241 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
There was an accident on the 5, so the suggestions were to go the 405 and then cut across, but then by the time people got to the 405 near LGB, there were accidents there too. It was just a bad day.

Sounds like it. I once was at a standstill on the 405 for like 3-4 hours because some guy decided to stand on a bridge and threaten to throw himself off.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
I was just explaining to the poster why SNA is not favored by LA residents. It is just too hard to get to, unless you live in the O.C., and even then, LAX can be easier to get to for some areas of Orange County.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):
If Burbank weren't so limited, it would get more traffic, as it isn't that hard to get to for anyone in the valley or in Hollywood, Pasedena, Glendale, even during heavy traffic. Surface streets get you there faster than LAX. But there's little to draw you there, with limited traffic, lack of frequencies, lack of routes, lack of parking facilities, etc.

Both of those airports are really limited by really being penned in. I mean, their facilities are fine for small O&D reliever airports with good yields, but 6886' and 5701' main runways are not going to make a major airport. One thing that I will say is the BUR doesn't lack frequency from where you can fly from there. They have 3x DFW, 3x DEN, 4x JFK, 4x SLC, 15x LAS, 14x PHX, 16x OAK (wow!), 9x SJC, 10x SMF (double wow!!), 8x SFO, 4x SEA, and 4x PDX. You do need to connect for several major markets, but the frequency is definately there for BUR for the places that are served non-stop



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineOakjam From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2104 times:

Hello all:

Good topic to open, here in the Bay Area I'll give my reasons why airports are maxed out. SFO is too busy, but the bad weather problems cause it not to be used more than it is today. SJC is far from East Bay/SF/North Bay Residents to use so more opt for OAK or SFO. Also SJC is land locked in downtown San Jose, I really don't know how much more room there is to grow there. SFO will probably not get those runways it wants on water, Most bay residents are against it. OAK has a good amount of land to grow into a fairly sizeable airport. The only problem with OAK is can the Port of Oakland convince neighboring San Leandro and Alameda residents about more flights and more noise coming to those communities. OAK had a second large commercial runway in their long term future plans over the water and another site where North Field is currently located. The also had plans for a new 20 gate terminal, aside from the current remodeling and additions to terminal 1 & 2. I think the T2 (5 new gates)additions at OAK should be done soon. Maybe I will grab a picture when I fly out on Jetblue next week to LGB.


User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2951 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2054 times:

What? No mention so far of the big Southern Calif. airport that always seems empty? ONT?  Smile

User currently offlineLACA773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4064 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2007 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Everyone is forgetting the lonely step-child ONT? They are virtually empty.

Anyone have any information on ONT??


User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1982 times:

Quote:
SAN -- Broken because lack of runways. Also the restrooms on wrong side of security thanks to Bin Laden. Can't figure out for the life of me why my native city doesn't get non-stop service to Europe on BA? What do San Diego people do drive to LAX? Stop over in New York? Let's get real here and have better service to America's finest city.

Lack of runways, yes. But it works - and so does LGW with one runway.

Restrooms are on both sides of security, T1, T2, and Commuter Terminal.

BA could not make money on the route. They could not codeshare with AA on this route, nor could any government employee us the BA flight due to the "Fly American Only" rule. The 777 is too much airplane for the route, but it is the only twin jet allowed to take-off from SAN and clear the terrain on one engine (in case of emergency). A 767 is not certified to do this at maximum weight.

People from all over California drive to LAX. Many times the flights are cheaper, and let's face it, considering the non-stops available from LAX, it will always be that way.

As for other airports, you need to understand the term NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard. Southern California has become a Mecca for people who feel that once they move into a neighborhood, everyone, including the airport, needs to move because it's too crowded.

BUR has a clause that does not permit it to make ANY improvements to the terminal of ANY sort. They cannot expand the building to allow all passengers waiting for security to wait inside because the NIMBY's are afraid it will make the airport noisier.

LGB and SNA are surrounded by wealthy and well-organized communities. LGB is slot restricted, due to the demands of the surrounding neighborhoods. Newport Beach would buy a fleet of bulldozers and level SNA to get those "damn noisy jetliners" out of their airspace if they could. The runway will never be lengthened, and the airport is closed to take-offs AND landings between 11 PM and 7 AM.

El Toro was offered to Orange County for free. Public demand killed it. It will now become more cookie-cutter houses putting more traffic on the freeway system.

SAN might possibly have a chance to be moved to Miramar. It is being put to the voters very soon (assuming the airport board comes to its senses and abandons the ridiculous desert sites), and it could actually happen, if the land becomes available. Projections are that the airport will be maxed out by 2015, and as convenient as Lindbergh is, I would love to see an expanded facility at Miramar. I'm not holding my breath, but it could happen.

The mantra of all these NIMBY's is "oh, just close this damn noisy airport and let everyone go to a different airport!!", usually meaning LAX. The ironic part is LAX has its own group of NIMBY's, determined to shrink the airport size.

Very soon, cheap airfares to southern California will be a thing of the past. Airports will become slot-controlled, and fares will rise. Nothing can be done in California anymore unless it is completely painless and someone else can pay for it. As long as some people think there's a magical solution that's going to make EVERYONE happy, and not cost a cent, the ostrichs with their heads in the sand will make our grandchildren's life a lot more complicated than it need be.



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 offlineSJCRRPAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1932 times:

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 9):
Restrooms are on both sides of security, T1, T2, and Commuter Terminal.

It is probably more of an issue for women than men, but if you notice Terminal 1 restrooms on the gate side are very small, and the larger, now mostly unused restrooms are on the other side of security. I'm fairly sure one 737 has more toilets than the toilet capacity of terminal 1 on the gate side of security. Too few toilets normally means smelly and dirty and gives the airport a bad reputation, in addition I've seen more than a few women worried about missing a plane because to get to a usable toilet they would need to go back through security. There is even some type of signage advising limit toilet facilities at the gate. I'm sure the terminal was not designed to post 9/11 specifications. Side note, I hate Bin Laden.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26815 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1906 times:

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 9):
BUR has a clause that does not permit it to make ANY improvements to the terminal of ANY sort. They cannot expand the building to allow all passengers waiting for security to wait inside because the NIMBY's are afraid it will make the airport noisier.

Actually, the reason improvements can't be made to BUR's terminal is because it has been technically condemned by the FAA. It is WAY too close to the runways under FAA safety standards and as such, if it is changed at all, the FAA will close it down because it will lose its grandfathering rights. The worst thing about this is that the NIMBYs killed an offer by Lockheed to DONATE the land for a new terminal (which, IIRC, had already started construction) that would be a safe distance away and have little if any more capacity than the new one.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 9):
Newport Beach would buy a fleet of bulldozers and level SNA to get those "damn noisy jetliners" out of their airspace if they could. The runway will never be lengthened, and the airport is closed to take-offs AND landings between 11 PM and 7 AM

ARPT CLSD TO ACFT PRODUCING MORE THAN 86.0 SENEL DB TKOF 2200-0700 EXCP SUN CLSD TIL 0800; CLSD TO ACFT PRODUCING MORE THAN 86.0 SENEL DB LNDG 2300-0700 EXCP SUN CLSD TIL 0800.

Takeoffs and landings can happen at SNA 24 hours if the aircraft produce 86 db or less

Funny thing about Newport. Those people hate all the airliners, but they love having their private jets (often MUCH louder) parked there.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineDesertAir From Mexico, joined Jan 2006, 1481 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1830 times:

I fly in and out of Sacramento on a regular basis. SMF does not seem to be at capacity at this time. There is room for expansion from the existing gates. The only terminal that is continually alive is the Southwest area.

User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1810 times:

Quoting SJCRRPAX (Thread starter):

SFO -- Pretty busy, lack of runways and I think the international traffic likes to all come in at the same time.



Quoting SJCRRPAX (Thread starter):

SJC - Looks like plenty of room to grow to me, except for no parking. The most planes I've ever seen waiting to take off was four. Looked pretty cool, Hawaiian, Fed-Ex, Southwest and American I believe. I should have took a picture. Generally the flights seem to be about 5 minutes apart at least.



Quoting Oakjam (Reply 6):
SFO will probably not get those runways it wants on water, Most bay residents are against it.



Quoting Oakjam (Reply 6):
Also SJC is land locked in downtown San Jose, I really don't know how much more room there is to grow there

SFO has lots of room to grow, especially after the new gates will be open..

besides a few hours of the day for European flights, the International Terminal (Terminal A),which is new, and HUGE, is virtually empty.....there is a good period of the day, where flights are basically nil (been there close to 100 times the past 3 years)..........

SJC has lots of room...many say that they don't have enough gates, but living near SJC and flying out of SJC too many times to remember, I think SJC has tons of room to expand.....it might get tight a little during certain periods of the day, but it certainly can be done....however, the caveat would be there wouldn't be room for too many heavies at one time....but besides HA 767 and AA's 777, and a few cargo planes, there are basically no heavies there....

parking isn't too much of a problem, as the parking lot is never near close to being full, not to mention, many people off-airport park....

besides for people from the East Bay/Dublin/etc., SJC is quite convenient for people who live in the entire South Bay/SJC, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Menlo Park, Los Altos, etc. region..

SJC does get far for people who live in the SFO/Burlingame/South-SFO/Foster City/Redwood City, etc.



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1726 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 1):
Actually, lack of runways isn't the main problem. LGW proves that you can handle a lot more traffic than SAN does on just 1 runway. The problem at SAN is the operational issues with the runway. The runway is too short to handle heavies to Europe or Asia, specifically because of terrain issues. BA's flight to SAN couldn't succeed because they couldn't carry any cargo at all on the 777.

Noise abatement, net land mass, roadway access, then terrain.

You can fly anything out of there full domestic range to meet capacity but you won't be able to get enough flights in there in an 18 hour period, you can't expand the terminals enough to accomodate what would be a 60% widebody fleet at the airport because the land just isn't there, you can bring in 787's all day in 15 years but you won't be able to get to the terminals on a roadway that can't be expanded, and the terrain ends 100-150 flights a day in IMC.

Broken is a good description.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26815 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1726 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 14):
Noise abatement, net land mass, roadway access, then terrain.

You can fly anything out of there full domestic range to meet capacity but you won't be able to get enough flights in there in an 18 hour period, you can't expand the terminals enough to accomodate what would be a 60% widebody fleet at the airport because the land just isn't there, you can bring in 787's all day in 15 years but you won't be able to get to the terminals on a roadway that can't be expanded, and the terrain ends 100-150 flights a day in IMC.

Broken is a good description.

And the net of all of this is that they need to take that perfectly located, absolutely massive airfield in Miramar that has been offered to them for free and get over with it.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1721 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
And the net of all of this is that they need to take that perfectly located, absolutely massive airfield in Miramar that has been offered to them for free and get over with it.

That's just it. It hasn't been offered. It was, they couldn't decide who would operate (City vs. Port District) it so the Military took it back 10 years ago.

Simply foolish.


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...
One Of Europes Least Known Airports Is To Close posted Mon Feb 4 2002 12:25:40 by Dstc47
Airports Too Close To City? posted Thu Apr 15 1999 23:27:34 by FirstClass!
FAT 757 Fly Too Close To TG Plane: Hit Turbulence posted Thu Nov 16 2006 06:56:37 by Jimyvr
Air China Close To Signing For 10 B777's posted Mon Oct 30 2006 13:54:13 by UA777300ER
CRJ-900X Close To Launch posted Thu Oct 19 2006 23:08:49 by YULspotter
I Came Close To A Jet Today! posted Tue Oct 17 2006 15:16:50 by Newagebird
NWA - How Close To BK Exit? posted Mon Oct 16 2006 22:01:09 by DeltaDAWG
Airports scheduled to see the A 380 as of now posted Thu Sep 14 2006 22:57:04 by Af773atmsp
Hot: Embraer And Varig Close To Deal 4 Embraer 190 posted Wed Sep 6 2006 03:52:26 by LipeGIG
Mexicana Close To Airbus Order posted Fri Aug 25 2006 03:37:57 by Manni