Travelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3380 posts, RR: 0 Posted (13 years 4 months 9 hours ago) and read 2203 times:
I just got back from HNL yesterday (see trip report in "trip reports" section). A lot of people on my flight were either changing planes in LAX to catch a flight to San Diego, or were driving down to San Diego from LAX. It seems like there is huge demand for non-stop SAN-HNL flights. It is a matter of time before they are begun. My question: Who will be the first airline to offer it, and what type of plane should be used???
Trvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 22 Reply 2, posted (13 years 4 months 8 hours ago) and read 2071 times:
The flight you took was probably on Delta, which then switched to a L-1011 for the SAN-HNL flight. The route was ended about 4 or 5 years ago, probably so DL could concentrate on LAX and SFO. If any airline decides to offer SAN-HNL service again, then it will probably be Aloha or Delta again, with either a 737-800 or 757/767.
TropicalSkies From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (13 years 4 months 6 hours ago) and read 2024 times:
There will be a new SAN-HNL flight starting up very soon. Heard of TransPacific Airlines? One of their first routes is SAN-HNL, using a DC-10. I'd suggest you fly this. Another reson is that SAN is too small an airport for San Diego. There are NO slots available at the moment, TransPacific was lucky to get the last slots.
Also, SAN is a very expensive airport to fly into, due to space limitations. Landing costs are much higher than that in LAX, which is why DL switched their flight to LAX in the first place. Now if SAN were to build a new airport, you'll see more growth in that area than ever before, so many new flights and carriers moving in, it could top LAX's growth rate in terms of air travel.
Only time will tell. So far, no new airports. The residents will not have it, they need to preserve their precious "peace and quiet". Blah!!!!!!
Build the damn airport a block away from my house! I'd love it! In fact, let's send in some old 707s and shake the whole neighborhood up! Take that you quiet-loving, no love for aviation, selfish fools!!!
Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!
Ahhhhhh, I feel better now.
Personally, fellow aviation fans, would you mind living under the approach to a major airport, near the threshold? I'd love it!!
Another thing stunting the growth of aviation in SAN is environental concerns. Well, I love nature and I hate to see it spoiled, but for God's sake. The precious cars you people like to drive put out more toxins each year than the airplanes, why do you think L.A. has so much smog? It ain't the airplanes!!!!!
Why don't you all get rid of your cars and see how you like it. Don't like it, do ya. OK, neither do us aviation fans. GET OFF!!!!!!!
I feel even better now!!!!!
BTW, I wasn't venting at anybody on this forum, I'm mad at the people who protest the expansion of air travel, that's all. In fact, recently UPS (?) wanted to turn Brown Field into a cargo hub for SAN, to ease congestion, and people had a total fit!! God, it ain't that big a deal.
No offense, San Diegans!!!
Trvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 22 Reply 5, posted (13 years 4 months 4 hours ago) and read 1999 times:
I agree with you. The problem just boils down to the fact that most people don't have the knowledge to think that far ahead into the future. They just say: "Don't worry, it is just too much trouble for us now. Los Angeles will take care of it!!!". If you have been to LAX lately, however, you will see that will probably not happen. This is turning into a problem that is affecting all of Southern California. If the current trend continues, people are going to wake up in 20 years and find that the population of the area they live in has increased by a million. Then they will be kicking themselves for not doing anything around the turn of the century, just like many people are kicking themselves now for not doing anything a few years ago.
Johnboy From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2537 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (13 years 4 months 3 hours ago) and read 1988 times:
I agree that it will probably be Aloha Airlines that starts flights from SAN, to both HNL and OGG. I haven't heard of load factors on OAK flights to both cities, but I can't imagine people not taking advantage of flying out of OAK instead of SFO. Rumor has it that SNA will also get flights to both HNL and OGG. Hard to believe that no airlines have flights from either city, leisure traveler vs. business traveler be damned!
FLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (13 years 4 months 2 hours ago) and read 1982 times:
you said, "why do you think L.A. has so much smog?", well it sure as hell ain't just from the "precious cars" (you must still be riding your bike). Have you heard of fires, or factories?! 'cause LA has both of those...
Furthermore, the next time that you're in LA, take a good look at what surrounds you--MOUNTAINS. Yep--LA's built right at the bottom of a BASIN, which basically acts as a screen which keeps EVERYTHING in. LA was "smoggy" back when the Indians lived there--their fires always kept the basin choked up.
(Here's another way for you to look at it: A bowl of water keeps the water in, and none of it can escape. But if you poured that same amount of water on a tabletop, it would dribble off until there was barely any left.)
Another good example of a state which has quite a bit of smog is the state of Washington. Drive over to Seattle some clear day, and take a look around. Similar to what LA has, although much more spread out (Olympic Mtns. and Cascades are further apart than the Coast and the San Bernadinos).
Just a little pet peeve of mine (the misinformed, that is).
TropicalSkies From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (13 years 4 months 2 hours ago) and read 1969 times:
I couldn't agree more!!! What I feel is that the only place that is open enough for SAN to build a new airport is to the north, between the mountains. You know where the Wild Animal Park is, right? Come back south from there and there's a nice little valley there, with orange trees all over and an Ostrich farm in the middle. Beautiful area! But, this might be a likely area for SAN to build a new airport. Eventually, city officials are going to have to go against the public's wishes and bulldoze some wilderness.
Wait, I take that back. There's too much politics involved in a situation like this. So, will a new airport be built? NOOOOOOO!!! Why? Because the darn city officials will want to get re-elected, right? Don't want to piss anybody off, right? So, if a new airport has to potential to piss somebody off, it'll never get built!
So, I geuss we need to quit wishing for a new airport, and start hoping an old one gets restored, or expanded. One potential airport would be Gillespie Field, north of El Cajon. I haven't seen this area in real life, so I'm not sure on how open the land is around Gillespie, but according to my map, there's only a few roads around it, which says to me that it's sparse residential. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Figures for Gillespie-
9L/27R- 5,341 ft, ILS ISEE rwy 27R
17/35- 4,147 ft
9R/27L- 2,737 ft
Gillespie at current could support an aircraft no larger than a 767-200. If expanded by just 3,000 ft, Gillespie could support a Boeing 747-400!
Another alternative would be Montgomery Field. I passed by this field on my trip to San Diego, and believe me, I can't imagine a 747 there, but if the mint runway, 10L/28R is expanded by 4,000 ft, it could support a 747. But the tarmac also has to be expanded. Plus, residential areas surround Montgomery, so chances of this airport being expanded are nill.
Brown Field is an excellent contender. The main runway, 8L/26R, is 7,999 ft long. The only problem is that a large hill is in the way of the takeoff path to the East, so any departures would have to take off to the west, and arrivals would have to land heading east.
Protests have already kept Brown from expanding, so again opportunity is slim for Brown. Currently it can support a 747-sized aircraft.
That pretty much does it for San Deigo's alternates. Some airports to the north include Oceanside and Carlsbad Municipal airports, but these airports are barely large enough to hold a King Air, so it's not likely their runways will be expanded by 5,000 ft each.
Further north in Santa Ana, we have El Toro. Now THIS has potential. It's just outside Santa Ana, with room to grow. Two runways are 10,000 ft long, two are 8,000 ft long, and one is 3,900 ft long. this airport could hold an A3XX-sized aircraft!!
I hope El Toro doesn't become a housing developemnt, it is southern California's best hope for a new international airport!
Nest, there's John Wayne, already at full cpacaity, with a main runway length of 5,700 ft. This airport won't grow, it's surrounded by housing.
An area close to Los Angeles that I like is Long Beach, Daughtery Field. One runway is 10,000 feet long, one is 6,192 ft, one is 5,420 ft, another is 4,470 ft, and finally one is 4,267 ft. All runways are at maximum length, there's no room for growth. Still, when LAX is full, Long Beach will be most likely to expand in terms of air service.
Van Nuys airport to the north is further away than LAX, but has good potential. Runways are 8,001 ft and 4,000 ft, so thsi airport could support a 747. Not to mention there's enough ramp space too.
Burbank is BLAH! Run-down, very little ramp space. The only good feaure is that runways are 6,886 ft and 6,032 ft long, well enough for a 767-400.
Finally, Ontario Int'l is a good spot. runways are 12,200ft and 10,200 ft long. there's AMPLE ramp space, and so much airport-owned land around the terminals, the airport could be expanded to LAX size!! The only problem is that it's 43 miles from downtown L.A., and nobody wants to drive 43 miles to catch a flight if they live two miles from LAX.
For me, the most potential for Los Angeles area lies in Long Beach and El Toro airports.
For San Diego, Gillespie Field is the best bet, unless Brown's luck changes.
TropicalSkies From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (13 years 4 months 2 hours ago) and read 1963 times:
Actually, FLY, I have my own car. A 1991 Ford Escort, and I love it very much. What I meant by "precious cars" is that people don't seem to mind that their car's are spewing toxins, but they have the nerve to complain about an airplane?? Most modern jets put out probably less toxins per square inch of air than most cars do, except for the new clean air cars.
Now I do understand about the basin. I knwo LA is in a basin because I just went on a vacation to South Cal two weeks ago and saw L.A. for the first time. I can promise you, though, that a GOOD CHUNK of L.A.'s smog comes from cars!!!! Factories and the like help, but think about it, you have 20 million people in the entire L.A. area, and most of the time there's one car par person. That's about 20 million cars + driving in L.A. area daily!!!! You think that won't produce a little smog?
Hey, don't be offended because I said something negative about L.A. I saw L.A. when the smog blew away towards the evening and it's really a beautiful city.
My main problem with L.A. is not the smog, the traffic, or the congestion. I don't mind that much, it's the CRIME that killed L.A.
I'd never live there because of the crime. Thank you very much, I'll stay in San Diego or San Fran!!
Trvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 22 Reply 11, posted (13 years 4 months 1 hour ago) and read 1958 times:
In San Diego, there is really no other option besides Miramar, Brown Field, and Tijuana. Gillispie and Montgomery Fields both have too many general aviation operations and both are boxed in by major highways and surface roads, that will not allow expansion. Unfortunately, each of the options left have faced fierce opposition on both the public and political sides, so as much as San Diego has the need (and in my opinion, an opportunity that should lead to obligation), I doubt that without a major political shakeup and/or a shameless leader of the regional transportation council or a mayor, then I doubt anything will happen .
As much as El Toro would be a good site for an airport, the residents around there will need to cool off a little bit before the option of converting it to a civilian airport. Orange county voters approved Measure F in March this year, making it impossible for the county to spend any money on trying to lobby to develop a new airport, or block any plans to annex El Toro. Separately, a poll conducted shortly before the vote concluded that three out of five registered voters in O.C. did not know what Measure F was. They were probably lured in by the fact that Measure F would not allow the county to spend money on something. In my mind this would be my next choice for an airport if one could not be built here in S.D. Alas, that option, too, is rapidly becoming less of a possibility. So cross out Orange county, and again .
More and more I feel that the Los Angeles area, and more precisely Ontario, will have to bear the full brunt of SoCal's problems. Ontario is already a fledgling international airport; Air Canada signed on with service to Toronto this past June. ONT also has lots of room for expansion, and, as you have said, much of that land is airport-owned.
So I think if none of the other projects gets off the ground, then Ontario will be the second gateway international airport in Southern California. Unfortunately, that still is not a good solution for us down here in San Diego!!!!!
Trvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 22 Reply 12, posted (13 years 4 months 1 hour ago) and read 1950 times:
I would not be surprised if that happened! And then they will complain that the airport is taking away their "freely mobile houseboating culture" . No offense to houseboaters, though. Actually the floating proposal is still workable, although it is a longshot.
Mlsrar From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1417 posts, RR: 9 Reply 14, posted (13 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1917 times:
In July of '88 I flew DL's L-1011 service from SAN-HNL...not too impressive, and only about 50 people on board! Lack of profitability. I used to live in Chula Vista(916 Redbud Road) just off of J-street, and I was always disappointed in the placidity of SAN, the lack of interesting aircraft, etc.
The closest paralell argument would be--why is there no MKE-LGW/MKE-FRA service. Milwaukee and the surrounding metro areas could easily support international services--especially FRA. Runway length is not a problem 19R is 10,100'. The difference is, MKE is a sizeable airport, and we see a variety of aircraft. We're one of the few trunk routes left in the world with DC-10 daily service (N132JC MKE-MSP-SFO-MSP-MKE, flights 352/353). MKE needs international service just like SAN needs HNL service.
I mean, for the right price I’ll fight a lion. - Mike Tyson
Bicoastal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (13 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1894 times:
Tijuana will be the solution to San Diego's airport needs. It has the capacity at Rodriguez and the airport has recently been privatized. The new owners are very savvy and experienced. They plan to make substantial capital improvements and market the airport to U.S. and international airlines. Unlike Brown Field on the U.S. side of the border, Otay Mountain does not block the flight path for the TJ airport. Tijuana is one of the wealthiest (relative to other Mexican cities) areas of Mexico. Combined with the San Diego region, there are opportunities. Problem with Americans is their often racist and historical view of Mexico and Mexicans as lazy and inable to build anything that lasts and works well. Those attitudes/misconceptions will be overcome and someday I'll fly Tijuana to Honolulu on a Mexicana codeshare with United/Star Alliance.
Travelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3380 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (13 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1887 times:
I fail to see why a city/county of millions of people could not support a daily 757/762 to HNL. When you talk about SNA possibly supporting a daily flight to HNL, how could a flight from SAN possibly be unprofitable?
Maybe in 1988, demand was low. Today, though, San Diego is one of America's biggest cities. A flight to HNL does not seem unreasonable, and my bet is that one will be commenced within the next year or two.
My bet: American with a 757, Aloha with a 737, or Hawaiian with a DC-10 (ex-AA).
Tan Flyr From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1882 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (13 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1876 times:
Before UA retired the DC8-71, UA offered SAN-HNL service also. I think it is mostly a matter of economics my friends..Most carriers can make a better profit using the a/c on other flights with higher yielding revenue per passenger. Hawaii is mostly a liesure travel market. If AA, UA or DL were to consider ever re-entering the mkt, it most likely would be with the 757, as its' per seat mile costs are among the lowest of any type.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39450 posts, RR: 76 Reply 19, posted (13 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1875 times:
I think United 747-200, Hawaiian Airlines DC-10, or Aloha 737-700 would take this route. I flew SFO to HNL on United 747-200 two months ago and I loved it! I can't understand why anyone would want to fly a little 737-700 across the Pacific Ocean for 6 hours considering the 747-200 is bigger, more comfortable and can get there an hour faster!
I agree with CstarU and TropicalSkies.
Those spoiled yatch owners down in San Diego would dock there yatchs near an airport and complain about noise. Its ironic that those so called conservative republicans in San Diego would acually demand for more government regulation to stop noise pollution. Did you know that at Orange Counties, John Wayne Airport, planes can't fly in after 10:00 PM even if its only 5 minutes late! It has to be re-directed to LAX and fly over the poor sections of South-Central LA so the rich people in Orange County can get to sleep! That is just awful!
I am uneasy about people with no knowledge of aviation making critical deciscions on flight patterns.
Sorry for the long post.
By the way, LA sucks!
I can say that because I lived ther for 11 years and dont miss it at all! I live in San Francisco now and I love despite the fact that LAX is better than SFO and people are better drivers in LA.
Trvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 22 Reply 20, posted (13 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1874 times:
I do not know if I did say this before, but MIsrar was right; the Delta flight was stopped due to lack of profitability. Now, however, I think Delta as well as any other carrier could support a flight because now the city is a lot bigger, is definitely a lot richer (lots of people here with disposable income), and has better feed from other destinations, so it could accept spillover from overbooked flights in Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, or now even New York. I think first we will see Aloha enter the market with one of their 737s, and then a major carrier.
Scooter From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 848 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (13 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1864 times:
I'd be willing to bet that DL will be the one to offer Hawaii service again. They have really pumped up their presence here (including a daily Biz Elite 763 to JFK), and it just keeps growing and growing. It's like DL uses SAN as a parking lot overnight...
Personally, I'd make good use out of any nonstop service from here to HNL. Hawaii is a great weekend getaway for people on the US west coast, but the only reason I don't do it often is because of the required connections in LAX or SFO. Give me a 6:30am flight out of SAN (to arrive in HNL around 10am) and I'd be a happy guy. I could get almost a full weekend out there assuming the eastbound flight departs HNL anytime after 3pm.
Trvlr From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4430 posts, RR: 22 Reply 22, posted (13 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1852 times:
The area west of Terminal 2 does look like Marana or Las Vegas after 11:00 P.M., except with new planes. I bet that people actually would seize the chance to go to Hawaii for the weekend if the airfares were right, even if it was a 5.5 hour flight. What would really be cool, however, is if Qantas or Air New Zealand used one of their 767s on a route to Australia going through HNL. I think that Qantas should do that from with other cities along the west coast rather than having everything come through LAX. Probably not for a few years, though!