LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 12144 posts, RR: 22 Posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2125 times:
After a few years of work (including consultations with the FAA), the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority unanimously voted to start the clock on approving a mandatory ban on all flights at Bob Hope Airport from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. as recommended in a just completed FAA Part 161 Study.
If successful this would make Burbank the 1st US airport to enact strict new curfew regulations since the laws changed and took such authority away from local governments and placed then in FAA hands.
The proposed curfew replaces a currently established "voluntary" curfew that is widely ignored by air carriers.
Quote: Airport authority is angling for curfew
The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority unanimously voted Monday to start the clock on approving a mandatory ban on all flights at Bob Hope Airport from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. as recommended in the Part 161 Study.
On June 16, the authority plans to add comments to the report and will submit it to the Federal Aviation Administration, which has the final say as to whether the curfew will be implemented, officials said.
After the authority submits the curfew application to the FAA, the governmental agency is required to rule on it within six months, but it is unclear whether the assessment will take that long, according to FAA spokesman Ian Gregor.
"We have to thoroughly review this, but it's fair to say our review will take months," he said. "It's hard to say how long a review might take. The Part 161 process is both rigorous and complex."
The authority has to meet six general FAA requirements proving that the curfew would not create "an undue burden on interstate and foreign commerce" and "does not conflict with federal law," among other things, said Tom Ryan, an attorney with McDermott, Will & Emery, the airport's legal counsel.
Ryan believes the curfew surpasses the bar the FAA has set. "We've gone above and beyond what is required," he said. "[The FAA] can't act arbitrarily or capriciously to deny the application."
Taking a look at the current JetBlue schedule, there is not a single flight scheduled in/out of BUR between 10pm-7am.
The only problem would be delays/IROPS. But this would be a problem for all airlines - not just JetBlue. What about WN's extensive schedule at BUR? And what about the fact that JetBlue operates successfully at LGB despite its strict curfew?
JetBluefan1
Most people on a.net hate JetBlue. Get used to it.
LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 12144 posts, RR: 22 Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1750 times:
Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 2): And what about the fact that JetBlue operates successfully at LGB despite its strict curfew?
LGB does not have a strict curfew - actually far from it and one airlines (Jetblue) ignores left and right.
The enforcement portion and financial penalties with the LGB ordinance are a joke with a maximum fine of $300 for the 4th violation. Due to a legal quirk the city has been unable to raise fine level since 1995.
The proposed BUR ordinance however has much stronger teeth to it, proposing fines ranging between $3,671 to $14,464 per violation - something airlines will think twice about unlike the pennies LGB is stuck with.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Commavia From United States, joined Apr 2005, 6799 posts, RR: 59 Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1715 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter): The proposed curfew replaces a currently established "voluntary" curfew that is widely ignored by air carriers.
I don't really see airlines ignoring the existing curfew all that much. Out of well over 50 flights out of BUR each day, all but three seem to be fitting into the 0700-2159 window.
Looking at this summer's BUR schedule, it looks like the only flights that would be affected by this ordinance are the:
0645 US 737 to PHX
0645 UA CRJ to SFO
2218 US 737 from PHX
Thus, the biggest schedule adjustment needed to fit into these restrictions is an 18 minute earlier arrival of a flight from PHX. That's not that big a deal.
AA, Alaska/Horizon, Delta/DCI, and Southwest seem completely unaffected, as all of their schedules are built to fit just snuggly inside these limitations - examples:
B6's 0700 to JFK
AA's 0705 to DFW
WN's 2150 from SJC
B6's 2152 from JFK
DL's 2155 from SLC
QX's 2159 from PDX
CALPSAFltSkeds From United States, joined Dec 2006, 748 posts, RR: 9 Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1683 times:
This has little chance of being enacted in my opinion. It would leave the door open for other airports to tighten restrictions, which is against the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, which was basically a trade-off so that airlines would ban Stage 2 aircraft.
The current curfew at BUR has some provisions that make sense. The noise has been reduced at BUR due to quieter aircraft. If the noise goes up, then carriers can't add flights outside the curfew. It would make more sense to get the airlines to voluntarily remove aircraft like the MD80 and schedule around the curfew times. The current fines are the problem as they are a joke.
SAN went through this and has a reasonable curfew with increasing fines, a curfew review process and public acknowledgment (not good enough in my opinion).
Even though BUR is a satellite airport, the 2200 arrival curfew is too strict.
LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 12144 posts, RR: 22 Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1680 times:
Quoting Commavia (Reply 5): I don't really see airlines ignoring the existing curfew all that much.
There are plenty of late arrivals each evening outside the curfew, plus a Fedex flight which is even scheduled in wee hours.
Here is a sample of air carrier activity for one week outside of current curfew hours. In addition there are about 10+ late evening bizjet and GA flights.
Mon 3/10
03-10 06:52 AWE421 B733 Departed to PHX
03-10 06:58 SKW6255 CRJ2 Departed to SFO
03-10 22:02 SWA126 B737 Arrived from LAS
03-10 22:02 QXE2555 CRJ7 Arrived from PDX
03-10 22:07 AWE480 B733 Arrived from PHX
03-10 22:18 JBU358 A320 Departed to JFK
03-10 22:24 SWA307 B737 Arrived from PHX
03-10 23:04 SWA2618 B737 Arrived from SJC
Tue 3/11
03-11 05:01 FDX1417 A310 Arrived from MEM
03-11 06:48 AWE421 B733 Departed to PHX
03-11 22:05 SWA2892 B737 Arrived from OAK
03-11 22:28 SWA307 B735 Arrived from PHX
03-11 22:41 SWA2801 B737 Arrived from SMF
Wed 3/12
03-12 05:23 FDX1417 A310 Arrived from MEM
03-12 06:54 AWE421 B733 Departed to PHX
03-12 06:58 QXE2508 CRJ7 Departed to PDX
03-12 22:12 UAL1221 B733 Arrived from DEN
03-12 22:13 SWA307 B737 Arrived from PHX
03-12 22:16 AWE480 B733 Arrived from PHX
03-12 22:42 JBU358 A320 Departed to DEN
Thu 3/13
03-13 05:19 FDX1417 A310 Arrived from MEM
03-13 06:57 AWE421 B733 Departed to PHX
03-13 22:08 SWA307 B737 Arrived from PHX
03-13 22:17 SWA2881 B737 Departed to LAS
03-13 22:44 SWA454 B737 Arrived from SMF
03-13 22:49 UAL1221 B733 Arrived from DEN
03-13 22:53 AWE480 B733 Arrived from PHX
03-13 23:46 SKW53L CRJ2 Arrived from SLC
Fri 3/14
03-14 06:47 AWE421 B733 Departed to PHX
03-14 06:55 ASA9001 B737 Departed to SEA
03-14 22:19 AWE480 B733 Arrived from PHX
03-14 22:26 SWA307 B737 Arrived from PHX
03-14 22:55 UAL1221 B735 Arrived from DEN
03-14 23:49 SWA2801 B733 Arrived from SMF
Sat 3/15
03-15 22:26 AWE480 B733 Arrived from PHX
03-15 22:35 SWA2310 B737 Arrived from LAS
03-15 23:14 UAL1221 B735 Arrived from DEN
Sun 3/16
03-16 06:51 AWE421 B733 Departed to PHX
03-16 06:57 SKW6255 CRJ2 Departed to SFO
03-16 22:02 SWA2892 B733 Arrived from OAK
03-16 22:03 SKW53L CRJ2 Arrived from SLC
03-16 22:10 SWA963 B737 Departed to SMF
03-16 22:21 JBU358 A320 Departed to LAS
03-16 22:25 SWA126 B737 Arrived from LAS
03-16 22:26 SWA3322 B737 Arrived from OAK
03-16 22:32 AWE480 B733 Arrived from PHX
03-16 23:02 SWA2618 B737 Arrived from SJC
03-16 23:27 SWA307 B737 Arrived from PHX
03-16 23:42 JBU359 A320 Arrived from SLC
03-16 23:59 SKW6093 CRJ2 Arrived from SFO
The airline community as a whole would be much better off living up to the current curfew and being good neighbors instead of encouraging the city and residents to go after the much tougher ordinance.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
PanAm747 From United States, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 11 Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1526 times:
Quote: Looking at this summer's BUR schedule, it looks like the only flights that would be affected by this ordinance are the:
0645 US 737 to PHX
0645 UA CRJ to SFO
2218 US 737 from PHX
Actually, the first two flights you listed can still be listed as 0645A and not violate the curfew - the plane can close the door(s), "push back" (so to speak at BUR), and taxi to the end of the runway, and then at 0700A, the split second the curfew is lifted, head down the runway and lower the property value of the residents whose poor innocent children are being poisoned by large, polluting planes, and by large and polluting planes only!! Thankfully no harmful emissions from automobiles, industry, or natural sources occur in the San Fernando Valley...
Sorry, couldn't resist that one!!
If you really want to see a long line of planes ready to go, drive down Laurel Street/Harbor Drive between 6:15 AM and 6:30 AM some morning - there are quite a few pre-curfew departures scheduled, but no one leaves until the clock strikes 6:30 AM. I have flown several flights that have had to wait, but airlines plan on waiting until that curfew is lifted.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
Commavia From United States, joined Apr 2005, 6799 posts, RR: 59 Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1518 times:
Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 8): If you really want to see a long line of planes ready to go, drive down Laurel Street/Harbor Drive between 6:15 AM and 6:30 AM some morning - there are quite a few pre-curfew departures scheduled, but no one leaves until the clock strikes 6:30 AM. I have flown several flights that have had to wait, but airlines plan on waiting until that curfew is lifted.
Yep, I've done that routine before.
I've often been on the 6:15/6:20ish departure to DFW on AA that has taxied out to the runway and just parked for 15 minutes waiting for the clock to strike 6:30. In fact, one time - to my great surprise - we were actually the first plane out onto the runway, and the ATC actually put us out on the stripes, but we didn't actually go anywhere until 6:30. Suffice it to say, at the crack of dawn, with just the first rays of sunlight hinting over the horizon, it was quite a sight to behold to be accelerating down the runway at SAN and see a line up of 15-20 MD80s, 737s, 757s, etc. all sitting behind us waiting to get out!
N1120A From United States, joined Dec 2003, 23565 posts, RR: 88 Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1516 times:
Quoting JetBluefan1 (Reply 2): And what about the fact that JetBlue operates successfully at LGB despite its strict curfew?
LGB's curfew is far less strict.
Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 6): This has little chance of being enacted in my opinion.
You don't follow BUR all that closely then. They already turned down FREE land to build a much safer terminal because they were afraid it would announce flights. Meanwhile, people in and around BUR love to brag about the convenience of that little postage stamp. NIMBY hypocrisy is hilarious.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
CALPSAFltSkeds From United States, joined Dec 2006, 748 posts, RR: 9 Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1407 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 10): Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 6):
This has little chance of being enacted in my opinion.
You don't follow BUR all that closely then. They already turned down FREE land to build a much safer terminal because they were afraid it would announce flights. Meanwhile, people in and around BUR love to brag about the convenience of that little postage stamp. NIMBY hypocrisy is hilarious.
I don't think the FAA is going to let the ANAC law be basically overturned as it could open the flood gates. BUR should work to increase fines and try a PR campaign to cut the curfew violations.
LAXintl From United States, joined May 2000, 12144 posts, RR: 22 Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1395 times:
I believe BUR stands a good chance with this ordinance as its has worked hand in hand with the FAA to craft it the last two years during its required Part 161 study. If the FAA had zero compulsion to approve something I believe the department would have stated such and not spoon fed the airport authority exactly what would be required.
Additionally this proposed ordinance is for an complete ban on landing and takeoffs, something the authority did not believe was possible until engaging with the FAA, and were originally proposing a takeoff only ban as takeoffs have the most impact on the community.
Additionally the airport authority has gathered Congressional support for its petition, whatever that might be worth.
[Edited 2008-03-23 20:48:44]
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Flyboy7974 From United States, joined Jan 2003, 1540 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1296 times:
I'm sorry, but for anybody that votes in agreement to the curfew, I'd like to ask them to please go to the airport homepage, bobhopeairport.com, and then scroll down and on the left column, click history/timeline, and look at most of those pictures all the way up until about the 1960s, do you see any houses? NOPE! Do you see any residential development? NOPE! I think the first development in any proximity to the airport were the Lockheed hangars and some old military hangars, what came first, the airport or the homes? Easy answer, I think the airport should turn this around and file claims against any of those residents that have the nerve to complain about noise and complain that they are being harrassed. Don't move near an airport if you don't like noise nor the pure smell of jetfuel, it's that simple. I don't like tornadoes, simply because anything that can pick me up, shake me, toss me up and down, and then throw me miles from where I was, nope, don't want to ever meet Mr. Tornado, so folks, I don't move into tornado alley or the south and you won't find me on one of those weather shows titled "tornado chasers," cuz it's that easy, if you don't like the jets then don't plop your happy as_ es down next to an airport. What's worse, the town officials and council members then that back this up and then become sellouts simply for the votes.
I know back in the late 80s and into 1990, when BUR didn't have much going on and USAir and AA were just about to announce their heavy west coast flight reductions and BUR was about to take a huge hit, they didn't shut the door on Southwest Airlines when the airline announced their new service to OAK/LAS, because I was there and opened the station on 4/16/90 and was part of the huge welcome the airport extended to the airline. I've read the press releases as BUR was ecstatic to have airlines such as Aloha announce new service to BUR, or JetBlue announcing new cross country flights from JFK when they first started, and Delta that brought back service with an initial B757 flight to ATL and multiple frequencies to SLC with their connection carrier, SkyWest, and BUR was thriving and alive again. Funny thing though, not on any of those press releases from the airport did they ever state, p.s.- the neighbors don't like noise, so can you do a no engine approach to stay extra quiet because we live surrounded by morons, no, I didn't see those sidenotes attached to the press releases, or p.s. - ssshhhhhhhh, don't want to wake up the guy that thinks he is worth something but isn't really, or p.s - sssshhhh, quite time between these hours cuz our neighbors need their beauty rest cuz they are a bunch of baffoons.
It's hypocritical on one hand to encourage added airline service with the hope that pax will book those flights and enjoy the added convenience of new routes, new connections, or possibly more streamlined connections to further destinations that are introduced when airlines initiate new service to BUR, and then on the other hand, the same hand that was used to welcome the new airline and hold the door open for their entry, to then use that hand to pass a vote to approve an ordinance mandating such a curfew. While I am an avid supporter of BUR because that's almost home for me close to where I grew up and spent many afternoons running around and watching planes come/go and thus will always have a heart for BUR, I'd like them to remember back some years ago, when airlines weren't squeezed to fit in and gates were at such a maximum and airport officials back then waited for their phone to ring hoping it was an airline inquiring about adding service and not an airline saying once again, they're pulling service. Ask DET, Detroit City Airport, about this one, they lost all their service and didn't think that once they landed SWA that the airline would ever pullout because of unfulfilled promises, but they did, and how about BLV or GYY for instance who've had their share of services come and go and BLV only as of recently has been able to maintain one steady commercial carrier, BUR isn't as needed as a reliever as they may think they are. With fuel costs soaring and airlines streamlining their costs, I think BUR fits into a new category of airports about to take huge hits as airlines start to reevaluate their operations and make adjustments as necessary. It's coming soon folks, sooner then later if the costs of oil continues to rise like it is. Then for all the self-indulged "I think I'm worth a million bucks" type of people, instead of enjoying services close-in at your local BUR airport, cuz you were all too worried about a little noise and what it might do to your home values that now, without the airline service you once had, well, then you'll enjoy a lot more noise, and it's called rushhour on the 405 freeway as you sit in it and enjoy the traffic to LAX as cars crawl along and you thought enforcing curfew restrictions on BUR was a good idea. Hhhmmmm, noise as a jet passes over for 25-30 seconds, or, the tiring struggle of rushhour traffic early morning driving to LAX that can take anywhere from 30 minutes to hours depending upon if it's your lucky day, hhmmmm, think I'll support my local airport a little more and be grateful that airlines still offer service at such a close-in location and much easier to use facility then its international counterpart.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined May 2000, 12144 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
