Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SAN Proposed Redevelopment (Video & Pics)  
User currently offlineSAN787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 616 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4017 times:

It looks like Lindbergh Field could see quite a facelift in the near future...

The proposed improvements in Phase 1 include the following:

10 new jet gates at Terminal 2 - The addition of 10 gates will accommodate the expected increase in travelers

Additional parking for remain-over-night aircraft - The additional parking for remain-over-night (RON) aircraft will increase the efficiency of airport operations by eliminating the need to taxi aircraft from one side of the runway to the other.

Second-level roadway at Terminal 2 - A second-level roadway will provide separate departure and arrival areas at
Terminal 2 to relieve the current congestion associated with the dual arrival and departure location.

Parking structure - A new structure will provide additional options for passengers and meeters/greeters to park their vehicles for short-term trips.

Taxiway improvements on the north and south sides - Taxiway improvements will increase the flow of aircraft traffic by efficiently lining up aircraft waiting to take off.

Photos of Proposal: http://www.sanplan.com/renderings.asp

Video of Proposal (w/ B787s): http://www.sanplan.com/video.asp


those who don't get carried away should be.
59 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAnonms From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3964 times:

*shrugs*? The second-level road way is inside the parking garage? Very odd decision, indeed.


This is my signature.
User currently offlineSANMAN66 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 823 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3780 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The new expansion looks good.They should have added the parking garage a long time ago.The garage design is a bit too artsy for my tastes,but nevertheless, needed.My only question is,where will all the T-2 pax park while they are building the garage? T-1 should get a parking garage too.


PSA Gives you a lift!
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3708 times:

Quoting Anonms (Reply 1):
The second-level road way is inside the parking garage? Very odd decision, indeed.

I'd imagine it keeps the front of the terminal open vs. turning it into a cave.

It's also a terminal expansion, not a re-development.

[Edited 2008-01-25 22:22:43]

User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5787 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3675 times:

Damn, I'll lose my favorite parking lot (SanPark Orange).

Also i think they need about six more crossing decks/bridges from the drop-off/parking garage to the terminal. Two seems too few, even if some just go to the ground level they need more ways across.

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineSAN787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 616 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3636 times:

Quoting Tugger (Reply 4):
Also i think they need about six more crossing decks/bridges from the drop-off/parking garage to the terminal

I agree, and hopefully they're elevated above the primary thoroughfare...this would eliminate the need for stoplights at pedestrian crossings, improving traffic flow.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 3):
It's also a terminal expansion, not a re-development

It's not teal, it's aqua.   



Adding these 10 gates to the west end of the property will allow for stellar spotting from the soon-to-open NTC Park at Liberty Station!!   

[Edited 2008-01-25 23:09:54]


those who don't get carried away should be.
User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2727 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3593 times:



Quoting SAN787 (Reply 5):
Quoting Tugger (Reply 4):
Also i think they need about six more crossing decks/bridges from the drop-off/parking garage to the terminal

I agree, and hopefully they're elevated above the primary thoroughfare...this would drastically improve the traffic flow and would eliminate the need for stoplights at pedestrian crossings.

The problem is that there is no second level in most of Terminal Two. The parking lot isn't far enough west to have a bridge to the new section of Terminal 2. Since departing passengers have to go through security more bridges don't help as passengers should have already checked in and dumped their bags. Gee, how do the bags get to the aircraft?

However, a bridge at the middle of the parking lot could and should serve arriving passengers. The only question is how you get them from street level up to a bridge.

What the project really needs is to have a dedicated roadway for shuttles and buses to serve downtown, Old Town and the parking area at the old GD site. They could build a roadway that went though the Teledyne Ryan parking lot, then aerial beginning at the Commuter Terminal. It would directly serve Commuter Terminal, T1 and T2. SAN would have to relocate the Solar parking lot (or part of it) for the roadway that would dump onto Pac Highway, which isn't congested. If such a roadway were developed, they wouldn't need the parking structure, rather price the terminal lot higher to motivate people to take the shuttles and buses to farther away parking. The result would be a drop in traffic on N Harbor Drive, not an increase as will happen with the parking structure. That street is already running at classification F.

The worst park of the Master Plan is a proposed staging area for departures on the north side of the runway. We just had a runway incursion incident the other day. Why in the world would they propose to taxi aircraft across the active (as in most active in the US) instead of utilizing the Teledyne Ryan property to stage departing aircraft. Typical SANRAA - be involved in a contamination lawsuit that prevents them using the property, but plow ahead with plans that could be much better and cheaper if they got resolution. Same thing at the GD property a decade ago, but now it's a gravel lot for rent a cars - so much for fears of not being able to use the property due to contamination.

The entire process is weird as it's called a Master Plan, but it doesn't include Teledyne Ryan. And a "Master Plan" for an airport who's single runway is to be maxed out maybe just a few years after the additions would be completed. - then what?

This looks like another boondoggle like the Italian tiles that cracked in T2 and no way to cross the street to get from baggage claim to the parking lot. This region has problems with planning and implementation - look at the North County Transit District's Sprinter. the train to nowhere, which has just been delayed again - and just slightly over budget, NOT. Oh, should we mention that SAN needs to be replaced within 10 years and it takes 10 years to build an airport. That won't happen as some of the RAA Board members ran the NO on Miramar campaign. I wonder if Chula Vista could find room for a real airport and the Chargers?


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5787 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3569 times:



Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 6):
What the project really needs is to have a dedicated roadway for shuttles and buses to serve downtown, Old Town and the parking area at the old GD site. They could build a roadway that went though the Teledyne Ryan parking lot, then aerial beginning at the Commuter Terminal. It would directly serve Commuter Terminal, T1 and T2. SAN would have to relocate the Solar parking lot (or part of it) for the roadway that would dump onto Pac Highway, which isn't congested.

They should develop a dedicated Airport Trolley Spur that takes passengers to downtown, Old Town, and the old GenDyn site. I say dedicated because it should simply make the run back and forth and not continue on (people could transfer on if they wish to say Mission Valley or onto the Convention Center). It could also serve the parking lots and/or the rental car services.


Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 6):
If such a roadway were developed, they wouldn't need the parking structure, rather price the terminal lot higher to motivate people to take the shuttles and buses to farther away parking. The result would be a drop in traffic on N Harbor Drive, not an increase as will happen with the parking structure. That street is already running at classification F.

Wouldn't this be similar to what we have now due simply to not having available parking at the airport? You could just build the second level roadway for drop-offs (or pick-ups, whichever) to smooth traffic (or they could just build passenger bridges instead of the stupid idea of having everyone have to cross traffic. Whose idea was that?!?)

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineSurfpunk From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3569 times:

I used to live (however briefly) in the area where the new expansion is set to take place (the former Naval RTC San Diego). I'm surprised it's taken this long for them to do somwthing with that land, as the Navy closed down RTC/NTC over ten years ago.

With the growth of the SAN area, and demand for flights to overseas locations increasing, I'm surprised that they are putting so much effort into expanding Lindbergh when its space constraints won't be able to absorb much more, particularly with the one runway. Gotta love the "NO to Miramar" NIMBYs.  Angry


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5787 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3540 times:



Quoting Surfpunk (Reply 8):
Gotta love the "NO to Miramar" NIMBYs. Angry

Much as Miramar appears perfect, its not. I don't want want to get into an argument because there are solid reasons why it's the perfect spot, but really its in the middle of a hugely congested metropolitan area and will became a trap just like SAN, albeit much bigger and without the need to expand. But encroachment will continue because developers love to develop and constraints will be imposed because people love to complain. Like I said there are sound arguments for Miramar (and I'm sure Boeing7E7 can present them) but I think the relocation committee was gutless and stupid for recommending Miramar and not recommending the Pendleton site (the number 2 site), if your going to pick a fight make it one for the big prize.

Be that as it may, I am glad to see they are at least addressing the problems they can at SAN.

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineSAN88 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 117 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3533 times:



Quoting SANMAN66 (Reply 2):
where will all the T-2 pax park while they are building the garage?

I"m thinking on the SanPark NTC (just to the left/west) .................

I can only dream of WN moving into the new expanded terminal when finished.........T1 is such a dump



sit on the Captain side when you fly into SAN
User currently offlineSurfpunk From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 242 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3527 times:



Quoting Tugger (Reply 9):
Much as Miramar appears perfect, its not. I don't want want to get into an argument because there are solid reasons why it's the perfect spot, but really its in the middle of a hugely congested metropolitan area and will became a trap just like SAN, albeit much bigger and without the need to expand. But encroachment will continue because developers love to develop and constraints will be imposed because people love to complain. Like I said there are sound arguments for Miramar (and I'm sure Boeing7E7 can present them) but I think the relocation committee was gutless and stupid for recommending Miramar and not recommending the Pendleton site (the number 2 site), if your going to pick a fight make it one for the big prize.

I won't argue much either, as I'm not knowledgeable enough about current affairs in the San Diego area. I lived there almost twenty years ago (they were talking about Miramar back then, along with the trans-border SAN/TIJ option), and haven't been there since 1995, so I'm not down with current metro area expansion (I doubt it's much worse than MSP, ORD, or LGA). I do question the idea of putting a replacement airport 50-60 miles north of downtown San Diego (the Pendleton site...I'm assuming you're referring to land at/near Camp Pendleton). Getting people into town would be interesting...probably a trolley line up north to start, I'd bet.

I do agree that Lindbergh needs to expand, and the availability of the NTC site certainly helps, but the runway situation won't change there (unless they were to fill in the water separating the two sections of the former NTC, and extend the runway towards Point Loma a bit...maybe get 500 extra feet).


User currently offlinePiedmontINT From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 376 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 3520 times:

Apparently the redevelopment team is planning WN building a hub there too...

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y48/CarolinaKSU/sanhub.jpg


User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5603 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3506 times:



Quoting PiedmontINT (Reply 12):
Apparently the redevelopment team is planning WN building a hub there too...

I saw that too but notice in the next picture, #11, from a different angle, those a/c in T2E all seem to now be in HP livery! (Sorry but I don't know how to post the picture.)

Actually, SAN already is a key city for WN (in the Top-Ten stations) and I believe they plan on keeping us there subject to somehow getting more gate space in T1. (Some day, when SD Intl Airport at Miramar opens, WN will probably stay at Lindbergh and have PLENTY of gates and a beautiful terminal all to themselves!)

I assume the 10 new gates, many of which will be wide body/787-ready, will be CUTE; perhaps all gates in T2 will converted. Once the build-out is operational, I figure UA, AS and AC (if they haven't already by that time) will move to T2; then the west rotunda of T1 will be remodeled, WN will relocate there, T1E (where WN currently resides) will then be remodeled and WN will ultimately end up with all (or at least most) of T1's nice new 18 gates.

bb


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3441 times:

Quoting Surfpunk (Reply 8):
I used to live (however briefly) in the area where the new expansion is set to take place (the former Naval RTC San Diego). I'm surprised it's taken this long for them to do somwthing with that land, as the Navy closed down RTC/NTC over ten years ago.

Its a former dump site. It's not like you go and play in it, you have to remove it. That takes litigation and time.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 9):
but really its in the middle of a hugely congested metropolitan area and will became a trap just like SAN

Its really not and when you close Miramar as a military installation you actually reduce traffic by about 30,000 cars a day. There are no incompaitble homes in the arrival/depature path of the existing runways which would be used with a closed base and no homes within the noise contour. While I agree Pendleton is a better option given it solves a larger regional problem, the odds of getting Pendlton or any portion of it is slim and none. Miramar is closer to 60/40 long term, 90/10 if Hitlery gets elected. The politicians required in the region to get the base closed in the next BRAC are just about in place.

Quoting PiedmontINT (Reply 12):
Apparently the redevelopment team is planning WN building a hub there too...

It's a picture. I wouldn't bank on that.

Quoting Surfpunk (Reply 11):
and extend the runway towards Point Loma a bit...maybe get 500 extra feet).

You don't gain anything by doing that. The terrain is the problem, not the length of the runway.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 13):
then the west rotunda of T1 will be remodeled, WN will relocate there, T1E (where WN currently resides) will then be remodeled and WN will ultimately end up with all (or at least most) of T1's nice new 18 gates.

A bulldozer for Terminal 1 would be more appropriate at some point.

[Edited 2008-01-26 06:55:28]

User currently offlineSANMAN66 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 823 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3388 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting PiedmontINT (Reply 12):
Apparently the redevelopment team is planning WN building a hub there too...

Now that would be a real mess if WN moved over to T-2E. That would already put
the squeeze on the new ten gates planned for T-2,along with UA,AS,and AC moving
there too.Perhaps they could build a new terminal@ the Teledyne Ryan site? I guess
they would have to deal with T-2 flights taxiing for takeoff,mixed with arriving flights
taxiing to the new terminal,all on the same taxiway. I'm just wondering.Does T-2E
have more gates for WN flights than T-1E? It seems as if there's more gates @ T-1E,
or maybe all those WN 737s,parked there only appears to make T-1 look like it has more gates.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 13):
Once the build-out is operational, I figure UA, AS and AC (if they haven't already by that time) will move to T2; then the west rotunda of T1 will be remodeled, WN will relocate there, T1E (where WN currently resides) will then be remodeled and WN will ultimately end up with all (or at least most) of T1's nice new 18 gates.

That could be a possibility.

I saw something else in the new 10-gate expansion. It shows a RON area
directly behind planes parked @ the new ten gates,and another RON along
the boundary line.Wouldn't the planes pushing back from the terminal run
the risk of hitting those planes still parked in the RON area? Hopefully
there is enough room.I'm doing a little dreaming here.I wonder,after all the
expansion's done,if they could put in a monorail system,(similar to DFW),
linking the terminals?That could be a way to reduce vehicle traffic @ the
terminals.My guess is that they don't want to spend the money on
something like that when they could spend the same money on building
a new airport @ Miramar or Camp Pendleton.



PSA Gives you a lift!
User currently offlineSANMAN66 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 823 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3380 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 14):
if Hitlery gets elected.

That's funny!  rotfl  Sorry!



PSA Gives you a lift!
User currently offlineCoronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1612 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3360 times:



Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 14):
A bulldozer for Terminal 1 would be more appropriate at some point.

Tearing down Terminal-1 would not be a bad idea considering that the rotundas jut out restricting any kind of two-way taxi traffic from happening in a badly needed area that is very busy thanks to Southwest's bee-hive activity. Getting them over at T2E might be good idea until Terminal-1 can be rebuilt in a more linear fashion. Terminal 2 concourses do allow two-way traffic for at least the narrow bodies to taxi to and from the runway and may become necessary for WN to move there as they are becoming a bottleneck for everyone else trying to get to the end of the runway for departures on 27.



Uncle SAN at your service!
User currently offlineSANMAN66 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 823 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3356 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 14):
There are no incompaitble homes in the arrival/depature path of the existing runways which would be used with a closed base and no homes within the noise contour. While I agree Pendleton is a better option given it solves a larger regional problem, the odds of getting Pendlton or any portion of it is slim and none. Miramar is closer to 60/40 long term,

This I have to agree with you on 7E7.I don't want this to turn this into a flame session,but
wouldn't the noise levels be further limited if departing airliners taking off from Miramar
would make a quick right turn over Torrey Pines,avoiding the neighborhoods? Most
military air traffic currently do this now.When the navy had Miramar, I believe they called
it the "Seawolf" corridor.Also,looking @ the runways@ Miramar,there is that cross
runway that could be extended to route departing aircraft out over industrial areas &
Sorrento Valley,pretty much in that N,NW direction as the "Seawolf" corridor.



PSA Gives you a lift!
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5787 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (6 years 11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3328 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 14):
Its really not and when you close Miramar as a military installation you actually reduce traffic by about 30,000 cars a day. There are no incompaitble homes in the arrival/depature path of the existing runways which would be used with a closed base and no homes within the noise contour. While I agree Pendleton is a better option given it solves a larger regional problem, the odds of getting Pendlton or any portion of it is slim and none. Miramar is closer to 60/40 long term, 90/10 if Hitlery gets elected. The politicians required in the region to get the base closed in the next BRAC are just about in place.

Good Morning Boeing7E7!!! As you are the singularly most knowledgeable person I know on this subject, I knew I'd be saying that when I woke up!

I do agree that the entire issue does revolve around the base status and/or any effects on it. As to traffic at Miramar I think we'd have an increase in cargo traffic as the airport would now be able to handle it. Also there would bean increase in hotel traffic as they would be built near a new airport and rental agencies would also relocate there as well. I must admit its the "north side" operations that concern me with Miramar, I don't people look at them much. As to Pendleton I would think you might get some interest in also providing the military with a heavy lift capable airport right on the base (and I say might with a huge caveat, knowing that the military doesn't like it already).

Quoting Surfpunk (Reply 11):
I do question the idea of putting a replacement airport 50-60 miles north of downtown San Diego (the Pendleton site...I'm assuming you're referring to land at/near Camp Pendleton). Getting people into town would be interesting...probably a trolley line up north to start, I'd bet.

I have to say that I don't think SAN would close if Pendleton were done. Operations would reduce but not cease.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 14):
It's a picture. I wouldn't bank on that.



Quoting SANFan (Reply 13):
Actually, SAN already is a key city for WN (in the Top-Ten stations) and I believe they plan on keeping us there subject to somehow getting more gate space in T1. (Some day, when SD Intl Airport at Miramar opens, WN will probably stay at Lindbergh and have PLENTY of gates and a beautiful terminal all to themselves!)

WN has considered making SAN a.... damn, what's the word... well a "sub-base" (till I can remeber the right wording) for some time now.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 14):
You don't gain anything by doing that. The terrain is the problem, not the length of the runway.

Now for my dumb question, will new aircraft have better climb performance that could allow them to use any extra length?

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 14):
A bulldozer for Terminal 1 would be more appropriate at some point.

What are the plans for the Ryan site?

Tug
Edited to add comments about traffic etc.

[Edited 2008-01-26 09:14:46]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineSANMAN66 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 823 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (6 years 11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3308 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 6):
I wonder if Chula Vista could find room for a real airport and the Chargers?

The Chargers YES,an airport,NO.
Chula Vista has NIMBYS worse than Pt.Loma,plus a local congressman
(I wont say who) helped defeat the TwinPorts binational airport with TIJ.
However, this congressman LOVES the idea of an airport way out in
Imperial County (the desert).As I stated before, I'd be willing to bet that
we would have had a new airport built somewhere if they would have put
competing proposals before the voters.Example.The South Bay folks
could have voted on the Miramar airport idea,while La Jolla residents
could vote on TwinPorts,with Pt.Loma being a tiebreaker.If nothing came
out of this vote,then the airport folks would know where the most fiercest
opposition lives and plan accordingly. As for the T-2 expansion. I realize
there will be no gain from extending SAN's runway,due to terrain,but what
if they could build a taxiway/bridge over that canal and use the area on
that side for a RON area?That could free up space for taxiing planes
@ the new 10 gates.



PSA Gives you a lift!
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3307 times:

Quoting SANMAN66 (Reply 18):
I don't want this to turn this into a flame session,but
wouldn't the noise levels be further limited if departing airliners taking off from Miramar
would make a quick right turn over Torrey Pines,avoiding the neighborhoods?

They wouldn't have too. A 787 has a noise footprint similar to a 757. You can bet the 737/320/757 replacement will be about that of an RJ.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 19):
What are the plans for the Ryan site?
Not a lot of room for much of anything. Having the terminals at the west end gives you room to park the impending delays at the east end as they hold for departure favoring the west flow, WAAS/LAAS will reduce Runway 9 dependency over time. If they do a dual taxiway on the Southside (a much needed addition past the terminals) that takes up about 700-feet of space. If you put a terminal on it and planes push onto the second parallel taxiway it kind of defeats the purpose of having dual taxiways, nevermind the terminal footprint and lack of any measureable space for the counters and baggage/roadways and parking. If their stuck, decentralization with some terminals on MCRD at the northwest end is better than any terminal configuration at the east end, but even at that, MCRD doesn't net you much. About 1,400-feet measured from the runway centerline (RAMP+Terminal+Parking+Roadway alone is 1,000-feet). Works for a linear terminal, but how big do you build it and is it worth it when you know the airport is going to run out of capacity by 2030, unless of course you plan on having two airports where going north is preferred due to light rail connectivity between SAN and Miramar or Pendleton.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 19):
Now for my dumb question, will new aircraft have better climb performance that could allow them to use any extra length?
Its all about single engine climb protection, each plane is different, for example all but the 737-900ER have 9,400-feet of TODA. 787 gets 7,000-feet of takeoff distance. The -8 needs 9,400 and the -9 needs 10,000 and max. There was a high thrust variant of the -8 that needed 7,200 (-9 engine setting). That appears to be out of the picture, at least for now. That said, the next gen of narrowbodies aren't going to have any penalties heading either direction which will be good for SAN and places like Orange County, the target there is 7,000-feet and new wings will provide better climb performance.

Quoting SANMAN66 (Reply 20):
I realize
there will be no gain from extending SAN's runway,due to terrain,but what
if they could build a taxiway/bridge over that canal and use the area on
that side for a RON area?That could free up space for taxiing planes
@ the new 10 gates.

You would have to assume that land would be available, which it is not and never will be. The City has its own agendas apart from the airport authority (and previously the port district). That was proven when NTC when almost entirely to the City vs. the Port District. The biggest benefit from NTC would have been a 2,300-foot runway extension allowing a precision approach to runway 27. The threshold had to be displaced about 4,500-feet leaving 7,200-feet in landing distance. In terms of operational efficiency, this would have been a good thing, but that time was gone about 10 years ago. The irony of this maneuver would have been that Runway 9, for all it's terrain issues east of the airport would have about 8,700-feet of TODA vs Runway 27's 7,000-feet for heavies. The wind doesn't favor its use, but it is a rather amusing factoid.

[Edited 2008-01-26 09:24:15]

User currently offlineSANMAN66 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 823 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (6 years 11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3292 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Tugger (Reply 19):
WN has considered making SAN a.... damn, what's the word... well a "sub-base

A "Mini-hub"? Or,"Focus City?"



PSA Gives you a lift!
User currently offlineSAN787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 616 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (6 years 11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3277 times:

I doubt Southwest would leave T1 due to shorter taxi times.


those who don't get carried away should be.
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5787 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (6 years 11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3277 times:



Quoting SANMAN66 (Reply 22):
A "Mini-hub"? Or,"Focus City?"

That's it! I don't know the status difference between the two (but I'm sure someone here will) but I was thinking Mini-Hub. Thanks SANMAN66!

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
25 Boeing7E7 : If they can't get off a gate because of planes on the taxiway they would. 10 gates is going to add about 28,000 more flights in the first year of use
26 SANMAN66 : I'm not quite sure myself,but I think a Focus City deals more with O&D traffic,while hubs and Mini-Hubs involve mostly connecting pax.
27 SANMAN66 : Maybe that runway incursion a couple of weeks ago may help wake some people up
28 SANMAN66 : I know it's a touchy and political issue.But could they use imminent domain to get a few acres from NTC?Also.Where exactly is the NTC area that needs
29 SAN88 : haha many nights we need it, I remember sometime ago, their were delays and we pushed a couple planes in the 11 oclock hour and I think one made it u
30 SAN787 : This is slightly off topic, ok perhaps it's not...but could the San Diego County sustain a second int'l airport while keeping Lindbergh? (CLD will alw
31 Hawaiian717 : Escalator or elevator, the same as the Terminal 1 bridge. I actually wouldn't make it dedicated. I'd have it continue to the Convention Center area a
32 Hawaiian717 : Why? Other than Southwest, I've not noticed much connecting traffic at SAN, so I don't see much need to provide a lot for connecting passengers. The
33 CALPSAFltSkeds : The trolley is too slow at something like 45 MPH. It would take forever to get from Pendleton to Downtown San Diego. What would work would be upgradi
34 SANMAN66 : They never said for sure what the Teledyne Ryan property would be used for. It is my guess that they will use it for a better taxiway system to elimi
35 CALPSAFltSkeds : SANMAN66: The Master Plan adds a huge staging area north of the runway where the GA terminal is now. The Teledyne Ryan property is under litigation to
36 UAL-Fan : The city is flat broke and I think will be forced into Bankruptcy at some point, the State is like 15 Billion in the hole.....who pays for all this? A
37 SANMAN66 : Most likey,they don't know how long this site's going to be tied up in litigation, So they're planning just in case litigation ties this site up for
38 CALPSAFltSkeds : Then the Master Plan should put the entire north side in Tier 2 of changes. The porposal shows all those moves equal to the to new T2 terminal.
39 Boeing7E7 : Yes, given the proper scale of each airport. 10 million enplanements coupled with technical limitations is enough to support two airports. SAN is at
40 Tugger : Funding is not an issue in this situation as the airport as a separate funding stream, landing fees being the big one. They also can issue bonds sepa
41 Thegooddoctor : Pendleton is a little north isn't it... like most of the way to Ontario and Orange County airports? You actually end up passing a commercial service
42 Boeing7E7 : 10 years ago before they spent millions on new buidlings yes, today the airport authority would have a hell of a time justifying the cost. The City h
43 CALPSAFltSkeds : I agree. Pendleton would be a more regional solution with development funds coming from Orange County as well. However, the hills on the east side of
44 Post contains links and images Tugger : Actually, the report (can be found here: http://www.san.org/airport_authority/archives/index.asp ) gave possible layouts for all the options they loo
45 SANMAN66 : I have a feeling that a new int'l airport @ Miramar would have a late night curfew imposed on it because of La Jolla.But nevertheless, Lindbergh seem
46 Boeing7E7 : Even if it did, a single runway airport at Miramar could do more than Lindbergh will ever be able to do. Even hubs like ATL and DFW are relatively qu
47 CALPSAFltSkeds : Actually, there was a law passed years ago that prohibits addition of new curfews. This was a trade with the airlines to eliminate Stage 2 aircraft.
48 SANMAN66 : True. Especially when Miramar has that 12,000 ft. underused runway. I had heard somewhere that since Miramar has the long runway,NASA considered usin
49 Aveugle : This is good news although not technically the best solution. Were going to need a second site, and its only a matter of time until the rest of the co
50 SANMAN66 : It's only the F-18 operations that's preventing a joint use airport.If the fighters were out of the picture,then all other military aircraft such as
51 Boeing7E7 : Anywhere within 6 miles of the coast, on land, is not a problem with crosswinds. You can point a runway in any direction inside the 6 mile boundary.
52 CALPSAFltSkeds : I agree, but the vote was so overwhelming that I don't see such a solution getting anywhere. the NO group is still out there and will resurface to op
53 Surfpunk : Maybe they need to hire on Roger Hedgecock again.
54 SANMAN66 : Yeah,and don't forget they'll most likely use the old stale tactic of trotting out weeping children holding placards saying,"Please not near our scho
55 Post contains images Tugger : So if Lindberg was moved the curfew would lapse...... one big reason proponents will use in the fight to prevent Miramar. You MIGHT be able to get pe
56 Surfpunk : Is he? Wow. He doesn't strike me as the type who would be. Oh well.
57 CALPSAFltSkeds : I think Hegecock was on the NO side this time, after writing a book on why the airport should move to Miramar a decade earlier. San Diego does have a
58 SANMAN66 : Agreed! When I heard this, It didn't make much sense to me either. But Miramar has options. they could always extend the cross runway to route late n
59 Post contains images SANMAN66 : Maybe they wouldn't even have to extend that runway,since it's 8,000 ft, sufficient for airliners. They could land on the 12,000 ft rwy,and not even
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...
787 Development & Pics posted Sun Mar 26 2006 04:23:39 by 797
Really Cool Pics Of BMi's Proposed Cabins posted Mon Oct 8 2007 09:05:41 by NEMA
AC Tweaks SAN & SMF Winter Schedules posted Thu Sep 27 2007 21:14:11 by SANFan
Aloha To Fly SNA & SAN To KOA & LIH posted Sat Sep 22 2007 09:28:46 by Aloha73G
BA To San Francisco In The 60's & 70's? posted Wed May 9 2007 13:41:54 by Swiftski
Interior Video Of Updated Usairways 767&757etops posted Mon Mar 12 2007 14:48:01 by Etops1
Frontier & Midwest Move Again At SAN posted Thu Jan 11 2007 08:31:54 by Trvlr
SQ 773ER In CDG Inaugration Ceremony. (Pics & Vid) posted Wed Dec 6 2006 16:23:52 by Stevens91
A380 Crosswind Testing Video (Landing & Takeoff) posted Wed Nov 15 2006 20:02:09 by Leelaw
PIT-SEA & PIT-SAN Loads... posted Tue Jun 27 2006 21:53:21 by PITA333