EIPremier From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1539 posts, RR: 1 Posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2287 times:
So after a decade and one billion dollars, I have the following observations:
1) It takes a really long time to taxi from 16R over to the gate, crossing the other two runways. Seems like on the whole, arrival taxi times have increased.
2) The original "marketing" for the third runway is that it would allow "simultaneous approaches" during bad weather. Well, apparently "simultaneous" just means two staggered streams of traffic, not parallel approaches. While my sample is obviously unscientific, I have watched Seattle "webtrak" on the Port's website now and then over the past few weeks, and all I've noticed is that they "stagger" the arrivals (one left, one right, one left, one right), and seem to take off most often from the center runway. But, during impaired vis, they still seem to stagger by two or three miles between arrivals on opposite runways. I've still seen arrivals get stacked up to Edmonds or even Mukilteo.
So, I guess I'm just not convinced that six extra arrivals an hour during bad weather is really worth $1 billion.
N174UA From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 994 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2273 times:
Well it claimed to jobs of a few Port of Seattle employees over their illegal bidding for that "turd" runway today. I moved here in May 1996, and they were haggling over it then.
If it were another 10,000 foot runway, then sure. But 8,900'? Maybe it helps the regional carriers like QX, by letting them land parellel to 16L/34R.
I really hope/wish that they open PAE to commercial traffic. But, I'm selfish...I live about 2 miles from there, so that might help my property values one day, for the sake of convienience. Imagine....PAE-PDX, PAE-SFO, PAE-DEN, PAE-ORD....PAE-LHR, PAE-NRT (ok, I'm kidding on the last two)
Mason From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 748 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2242 times:
Can you think of ANYTHING that is worth one billion dollars, hundreds of homes bulldozed and residents displaced, bitter court battles and angry neighbors? I can't.
Quoting N174UA (Reply 1): If it were another 10,000 foot runway, then sure. But 8,900'? Maybe it helps the regional carriers like QX, by letting them land parellel to 16L/34R.
16R/34L is actually 8500', and it can accommodate just about anything for an arrival (or even departure), although I don't think you'll see too many takeoffs over there. JFKs 4R/22L is only 8400', and accepts an arrival by everything except maybe the A380 all day long, with room to spare.
HAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2499 posts, RR: 53 Reply 4, posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2123 times:
As a pilot I'd say yes, it's worth it. Having the airplanes staggered is required because of the distance between the runways. But if they went back to a single runway for approaches, there'd be closer to 5 to 6 miles between arriving aircraft in low weather, which would continue the delays I've seen in the past. By my experience the new configuration has speeded up the approaches.
And yes, 8,500 feet is plenty for most takeoffs. Our 763 departs Maui every day in hot weather with a full load of people going to SEA, and that runway is only 6,995 ft. long. That said, I'm glad they're using the center (or left if we're really heavy) for departures and the others for landing. It seems to work out pretty good. Yes, the taxi time is a bit longer for arrivals on 16R, but that happens any time you expand an airport with parallel runways. I think it is worth the time and $.
One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
Hatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1475 posts, RR: 14 Reply 7, posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1872 times:
Quoting EIPremier (Thread starter): 1) It takes a really long time to taxi from 16R over to the gate, crossing the other two runways. Seems like on the whole, arrival taxi times have increased.
Granted this will happen to some extent. But I just landed from DEN the other night on 16R for the first time and we were cleared across both runways the first time through and it didn't take any longer than landing on the old 16R and stopping and waiting to cross 16L.
I'd imagine that with 2 runways now for departures that they probably can clear more takeoffs simultaneously since there is less risk of wake turbulence when you take off shortly after a plane on a parallel runway? Correct me if I'm wrong all you pilots out there. Do the wake separation rules still apply the same if I were to say take off on 16C shortly after a 16L departure?
So if they have that flexibility, it is much easier to hold a plane for takeoff to let a landing one cross the runway, because now you have 2 runways to facilitate departures rather than stacking them all up on one.
Mason From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 748 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1761 times:
Quoting JFK69 (Reply 6): Actually, This is the runway the A380 used when it first came here a few years ago on the world tour.
Even better. One argument the anti-runway folks were using is that, and I quote, "Most of the planes at the airport won't even be able to use the new runway!", showing a picture of a 747 or something. Anyone in the know have info on if ATC in SEA is using 16R for the 777s and 747s?
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21755 posts, RR: 19 Reply 12, posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1542 times:
Quoting Mason (Reply 2): JFKs 4R/22L is only 8400', and accepts an arrival by everything except maybe the A380 all day long, with room to spare.
When the Whalejet visited ORD, it landed on 4R (8075 feet)... it took between 5000 and 6000 feet to slow down and exit the runway. There was video online at one point; you may still be able to dig it up.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
Lemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (4 years 12 months 14 hours ago) and read 1332 times:
You can't look at the worth of a capital project like this in the immediate terms. The 3rd runway wasn't needed right desperately right now, but if you want business community of the Puget Sound to grow along with the global economy, you have to be able to handle future flight growth. In 10-20 years, there will probably be far more flying done out of SEA than is done now, more Int'l flights, and 2 runways would be a disaster. You can't just start a 10-year project once it's too late
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.