Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Southwest's Concrete Apron At ISP Must Be Removed  
User currently offlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3090 posts, RR: 10
Posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7279 times:

Courtesy: New York Newsday

Southwest's Concrete Apron At ISP Must Be Removed

http://www.airportbusiness.com/artic.../article.jsp?siteSection=4&id=9820

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4643 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7268 times:

Damn, seems like ISP has been nothing but problems for them lately, didnt they have some terminal related problems lately too?


Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
User currently offlineLincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 7254 times:

It sounds from the article like it's certainly in WN's best interest to get the problems fixed -- after all, the greatest threat of damage is to their own equipment.

I wonder how long it will be until work starts -- I certainly can't imagin them waiting until the dust from the suit settles.

Lincoln



CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9460 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 7101 times:

The apron is only 3 years old. It's unfortunate that it has to be replaced and will be an inconvenience to WN. Fortunately for them they can go after the contractor for poor workmanship though, so they will likely have to do it again.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineJetBlueAtJFK From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1687 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 6849 times:

ISP has its share of problems. They did have the non-functionign sprinkler system in part of the terminal and misplaced gas lines there too. Once the apron is re done and the entire WN section is fully open and operational, WN at ISP will be very nice and safe, I guess I can't wait until then, for now, I can.

B6jfk airplane 



When You Know jetBlue, You Know Better
User currently offlineTbird From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 851 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6593 times:

In the mean time WN will be moving their ops to the four new gates recently opened this past November so it shouldn't prove to much of a problem. I still want to know what WN is going to do with 8 gates at ISP. There hasn't been to much talk of expansion.

User currently offlineNecigrad From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 6527 times:

An "asphalt cartel" ROFL! Hope WN wins the lawsuit. From what I'm reading the work should be considered to not comply with accepted standards, which the contractor is responsible for.

User currently offlineAirTran717 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 746 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5169 times:

Sounds like the same idiots who built my house. LOL

User currently offlineHagic From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 159 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4768 times:

ISP is and will always be my favorite airport. It's just 5 min drive from home, I'm through security in less than 3 minutes and for less than $100 I can fly Southwest anywhere in the United States.

I'm sure many of you would like to have such a privilege...  Wink



There's only one freedom of the press: That of the survivors - (G. Arciniegas)
User currently offlineMush From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4729 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 3):
Fortunately for them they can go after the contractor for poor workmanship though, so they will likely have to do it again.



Quoting Necigrad (Reply 6):
An "asphalt cartel" ROFL! Hope WN wins the lawsuit. From what I'm reading the work should be considered to not comply with accepted standards, which the contractor is responsible for.

Not necessarily, the brief article is clearly written to convict the contractor of poor workmanship...however, if the contractor built the apron to the design and specifications then the fault may lay with the designer.


thanks,
mush



Sprung from cages out on highway 9
User currently offlineBlackbird1331 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1892 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4585 times:

Speaking of airport construction,anyone know of the outcome/progress of the roof collapse at the airport that had,also, just been completed? I think it was in France.


Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21456 posts, RR: 60
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4445 times:

Look for the union label...  Wink

Seriously, that area of the country is entrenched with union graft and payoffs and construction fraud related to less than upright citizens running some of the big construction concerns.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineTravellin'man From United States of America, joined May 2001, 530 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4209 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
Look for the union label...

Seriously, that area of the country is entrenched with union graft and payoffs and construction fraud related to less than upright citizens running some of the big construction concerns.

According to friends of mine who live in the area, and are big fans of the airport, it's more the contractor who didn't pour the concrete deeply enough below the frostline, and public officials who are to blame for lack of oversight, not to mention bending over backwards to accomodate Southwest financially far past the point of reason. This issue has been coming to a head for some time, as the problems were revealed almost immediately.

In this case the union would only have stood to benefit from doing the job right, because the job should have taken longer and cost more, if it had been done according to plan; so, in absence of a payoff (not unheard of in that neck of the woods), it seems on the surface that the blame lies more squarely elsewhere.



It is not enough to be rude; one must also be incorrect.
User currently offlineChris133 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3733 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 3):
Fortunately for them they can go after the contractor for poor workmanship though, so they will likely have to do it again.

WN has already gone after the contract that built the first phase of the new terminal for poor workmanship. This is just the second part of that same issue. This was know and anticipated. I believe that is the reason WN has not added service to ISP so that they can move to the new side and still operate with no interuptions to service.


User currently offlineBlackbird1331 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1892 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3687 times:

T"Man. The contractor, the airport, the airline have nothing to say when it is right. The city inspectors are resposible. The contractor digs the trench; the city inspects to see if it deep enough. The contractor lays the reinforcement rod; the city inspects. The concrete is poured; tests of the pour are taken for strength requirments. Then, a final inspection and approval for intended use. In the building trades, it is with the inspectors where you will find the most corruption.


Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
User currently offlineJoelfreak From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 43 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3413 times:

Does anyone else think that WN may be slightly HAPPY about this? With US and DL possibly merging, and CO dumping the ISP flight, this makes anyone deciding to come back to ISP a bit leary of the entire airport...Just color me a conspirator...

User currently offlineMush From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3183 times:

Quoting Blackbird1331 (Reply 14):
T"Man. The contractor, the airport, the airline have nothing to say when it is right. The city inspectors are resposible. The contractor digs the trench; the city inspects to see if it deep enough. The contractor lays the reinforcement rod; the city inspects. The concrete is poured; tests of the pour are taken for strength requirments. Then, a final inspection and approval for intended use. In the building trades, it is with the inspectors where you will find the most corruption.

Alright, this is a little over the top...you can't blame the inspectors for this without knowing if they put it in their daily reports. I used to be an inspector (now I'm an engineer working in Brooklyn at one of the biggest public works construction jobs in NYC) and there were times when I noted in my report that the contractor didn't do things according to the specs and the Resident let it go. Also, the inspectors are only there to make sure the contractor installs the work according to the drawings and specifications. If the drawings or the specs are wrong or inadequate then the inspector can perform his job perfectly and the finished product will be crap because of a bad design.

For you to sit there and say it's the inspector's fault without know any additional facts insincere at best. Perhaps you know for a fact these inspectors are on the take. If that's true then you may want to talk to the police because you are an asset that they could really make use of.

thanks

P.S. I'm being sarcastic with the police comment. Sometimes it doesn't come across in print.



Sprung from cages out on highway 9
User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5625 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3074 times:

Not to mention the fact that WN's new concourse at ISP is (or was, when I was last there in August) a concourse without a name. It had been named after Islip Town Supervisor Pete McGowan, but the name had to be removed after he resigned in disgrace.


"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
User currently offlineBlackbird1331 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1892 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2920 times:

Sorry, Mush, but I have been around. Did not mean to insult all inspectors, but I have seen enough "hush" money pass hands. And for the record, I have made contributions to law enforcement, and I do not mean the monetary kind. I go where I am needed. If I am wrong, I'll accept that and not argue. But, if everyone was doing their job, this should not have happened.
And I will stand by what I believe, before the permit is issued, the specs have to meet the intended use. I know, the inspectors do not approve the specs, but whoever it was, they must have known they were at an airport and saw that large airplanes would use that space. Maybe the person who authorized the work to begin thought they would only be flying 172's.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but no apologies to some sorry-ass that would take money instead of correcting a potential problem.



Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
User currently offlineMush From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2720 times:

Quoting Blackbird1331 (Reply 18):
but I have seen enough "hush" money pass hands

Unfortunately, I've seen it also, and whenever I was able, I've assisted law enforcement also.

Quoting Blackbird1331 (Reply 18):
Sorry if I hurt your feelings

You didn't hurt my feelings...I was questioning how you could be so sure it is a problem with corruption of inspectors.

For the record, my personnel opinion, without any further info then what was provided in the article, is that this the fault of the contractor and the inspectors. From the article, my initial thought was that the water stops were either missing or installed improperly and that there probably wasn't enough reinforcing steel in the apron. If that's the case then it's the contractor's fault for not installing them properly and it's the inspector's fault for not catching it. I don't think it's a design issue, but I can't be sure because I haven't read the specs or seen the drawings.

thanks,
mush



Sprung from cages out on highway 9
User currently offlineArcrftLvr From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2623 times:

Quoting Blackbird1331 (Reply 14):
the city inspects to see if it deep enough. The contractor lays the reinforcement rod; the city inspects. The concrete is poured; tests of the pour are taken for strength requirments. Then, a final inspection and approval for intended use. In the building trades, it is with the inspectors where you will find the most corruption.

Unless the Town of Ronkonkoma operates different than most towns, the inspector does not inspect the depth of the excavation. Rather, they will do a rebar inspection once the subgrade is completed and the steel is set. Also, I don't believe the inspector inspects the concrete AFTER the pour. The inspector would not (and could not) verify the thickness of the concrete upon conducting the final inspection, either. However, the project managers acting on behalf of WN or the airport should have verified the depth of the excavation prior to the pour to ensure the concrete is poured to thickness spec'd out in the drawings. Also, the contractor should have generated a report stating that sufficient compaction of the subgrade had been achieved. The City may however, witness the slump test or require that the contractor submit the results of the concrete tests. The PM definitely should have been present for the slump test to verify the condition of the concrete. Also, the contractors as well as the project managers should have verified that the expansion joints were in the correct locations and depths..If all this was conducted, then it appears as though its a design flaw. In which case, the architect/civil engineer/and the City are to blame.

However, in my opinion, it looks like the contractor, WN, and the Airport are all responsible in this case. It sounds like the GC and the concrete sub performed substandard workmanship... I'm sure the City will file suit against WN and WN will file suit against the GC and their subs.


User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1356 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2538 times:

My friend worked for the state DOT in the midwest and they would inspect a lot when working on the interstates and other major road projects.

If the design called for say 6 inches of gravel the contractors would put down 5 inches. If you called them on it they would go 6, but if you did not the next section would have 4.5 inches. If you went to lunch or filed paperwork not surprisingly a lot of the work while you were gone would be slightly under spec. Same with the concrete, etc.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2437 times:

Quoting Mush (Reply 9):
Not necessarily, the brief article is clearly written to convict the contractor of poor workmanship...however, if the contractor built the apron to the design and specifications then the fault may lay with the designer.

Airport Pavement design is based on Federal Guidelines. It's a rather black and white specification. You either do it right or you don't. This reminds me of COS that just had to rip out a brand new runway due to ASR problems. There's really no excuse for it.


User currently offlineJetJeanes From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1430 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2413 times:

The condition of the pavement ... is indicative of a 15-year to 20-year-old, rather than a 1-year or 2-year-old, concrete pavement,"

Hmmm sounds like the contractor put down some recycled concrete.



i can see for 80 miles
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...
FAA: Planes Must Be Built To Take An Attack posted Tue Jan 9 2007 20:00:10 by KarlB737
Flashback: Frontier/Southwest 733 Lashup At LAX posted Sun Dec 31 2006 19:52:50 by Matt D
Southwest, Any Competition At All? posted Mon Oct 30 2006 02:44:17 by QXatFAT
BA Move To T5 At LHR To Be Staged. posted Thu Sep 21 2006 18:47:18 by TristarSteve
Another 747 At OPF To Be Scrapped (EC-IPN) posted Fri Aug 25 2006 06:06:59 by DB777
DL At ISP; Down To 2 ATL Flights Daily posted Tue Aug 15 2006 00:29:59 by Ramerinianair
Restrictions At ISP - Past And Present posted Sat Jul 29 2006 13:44:42 by Jetpixx
Why No B6 At ISP? posted Thu Jun 29 2006 16:57:12 by Emseeeye
Big Problems With New WN Terminal At ISP posted Wed Jun 21 2006 21:43:30 by LTBEWR
Cracks Found In New Apron At Islip posted Sat Jun 10 2006 01:56:40 by Dragon-wings