SANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5363 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2496 times:
Sounds like a perfect fit for Skybus and maybe Allegiant but I sure can't think of anyone else who would pass on ONT for Norton. Ontario (at least according to many here on A.net) is the most underserved airport on the planet plus with the LAWAA (or whatever the LA Airport group is called) promoting ONT and undoubtedly fighting any possible competition, I don't see much hope for anything major happening at Norton for a very long time.
Echster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2269 times:
Why would an airline want to fly into SBD with ONT available? It can't be all because of cost. I would think LAWA would be willing to offer incentives for new service. It would fit into the LA mayor's plan to have more service at airports other than LAX.
That withstanding, SBD, IMHO, cannot provide all the necessary services of a scheduled air carrier. Folks like myself who live in the IE know how the weather gets as fall and winter roll around. You can go weeks with a marine layer several thousand feet thick. I won't even mention "June gloom." Is it feasible to have scheduled service when the lowest minimums for an IFR approach into SBD is 600-1 1/4? What about IFR takeoff minima for Cat A/B of 2100-2, Cat C/D of 3100/2 at a field elevation of 1159 feet MSL? It's best to go with an airport that has room and better services on offer.
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2258 times:
I can't see SBD being viable because of the wicked approach minimums; the approach is effectively flying at VERY large pieces of granite, so you have to break off the approach abnormally high (compared to ONT, for example) so you can arc away in a missed approach.