QuestAir From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 365 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9401 times:
The so-called Manhattan Airport Foundation is pushing the idea of demolishing Central Park to make way for a more convenient NYC airport. Quite the ludicrous idea... from Jaunted:
"Although their Terminal renderings do look pretty, there are a gazillion and one reasons why this idea ... fantasy ... fever dream, whatever it is, won't work at all. For one, there is no way airplanes can get any closer to the city than they do now; remember the Air Force One photo-op debacle? Another reason is that Central Park sits on so much uneven bedrock that it would far too cost-prohibitive to try and level it for runway use."
Still, a pretty good prank. The Airline Blog reports that the address that they give out on their website is on the 58th floor of a 57-floor building (haha). But for those A.netters who live in Manhattan, how inconvenient is going JFK/LGA/EWR? Assuming that there could be an airport in Manhattan (never mind real life), would it be all that more convenient?
'Do we carry rich people on our flights? Yes, I flew on one this morning and I�m very rich.' - Michael O'Leary
FuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1977 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9342 times:
Will never happen EVER. The location is too bad. And central park i'm pretty sure is protected by the EPA. And they don't need more traffic over an already crowded New York City
"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
SlcDeltaRUmd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1671 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9314 times:
This is probably the single worst idea i have ever heard in my life.
Star_world From Ireland, joined Jun 2001, 1230 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9304 times:
Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 1): Will never happen EVER. The location is too bad. And central park i'm pretty sure is protected by the EPA. And they don't need more traffic over an already crowded New York City
Please tell me you are not taking that website seriously. It certainly sounds that way. Please!
TK787 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3532 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9263 times:
I just spent a 3 hour walk last weekend at Central Park. It is full of life, culture, nature, arts. I love airports and all, and I hate to travel to JFK, EWR but there is no way. Period!
VC10DC10 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 890 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9236 times:
Perhaps this is someone's school project for website design or marketing or something??
QuestAir From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 365 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9207 times:
From what I've gathered it's a joke, but it's pretty well done.
'Do we carry rich people on our flights? Yes, I flew on one this morning and I�m very rich.' - Michael O'Leary
Rampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2329 posts, RR: 8 Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9109 times:
Fascinating! But what an odd premise for a hypothetical study, be it a goof or a simplistic statement of some sort. Some "thought exercises" for exhibitions, contests, or classes have a least some grounding in reality. I guess it's a swath of land that can hold 2 runways, but no more.
I used to do this sort of exercise, too... when I was 10 years old. I used to plan airports for cities. Pull out a road map, look at an area that looked vacant or without roads, design an airport for it. Forget that there might have been a mountain, or national park, or railyards, or....
Along those lines, I've toyed with the idea of an airport replacing the West Side docks, something like LCY. More interesting and practical than this concept.
I wonder what "vestigial architectural elements" they're saving from Central Park?! (see the "About Us" section)
Cross757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 127 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9035 times:
Quoting VC10DC10 (Reply 5): Perhaps this is someone's school project for website design or marketing or something??
Pretty funny stuff!
Exactly what I am thinking. This is nothing more than a (well done, I might add) figment of somebody's imagination, perhaps an assignment in their drafting or urban development class. Have to admit, it is somewhat fun to think about!
Quoting Crosswinds21 (Reply 7): Yeah, the "Environmentalists Rally in Support of Manhattan Airport" part is pretty much a giveaway.
Absolutely! That along with the fact that any rational person would realize that there is no way to design an instrument approach into an airport surrounded by 50+ story buildings...imgaine the descent rate it would take on final approach...it would certainly make for one wild ride!
Maybe this was the brainchild of the U.K. teen who foiled people into thinking he was starting an airline?! Ha ha...
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 9006 times:
That's pretty funny--the idea of an airport surrounded by buildings, and buildings that are considered obstacles as far as aircraft performance is concerned. They'd never get takeoff weights high enough to be able to carry any passengers... Nor would those obstacles allow installation of ILS systems that would be needed during those bad weather days...
SurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2337 posts, RR: 29 Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 8958 times:
Take away the only green space in the heart of America's largest city and replace it with something that will create pollution, congestion, and danger. New York has already endured 3 urban plane crashes this decade alone. Some people have WAY too much time on their hands to be generating such a detailed website about an absolutely preposterous proposal.
Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
Moose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1791 posts, RR: 14 Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 8900 times:
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 10): They'd never get takeoff weights high enough to be able to carry any passengers...
Heavy Mad Dogs have a hard enough time getting out of LGA on hot days, I can't imagine the climb profile needed to clear the Empire State Building
FuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1977 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8666 times:
Quoting Moose135 (Reply 12): Heavy Mad Dogs have a hard enough time getting out of LGA on hot days, I can't imagine the climb profile needed to clear the Empire State Building
Would be a fun takeoff
"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4269 posts, RR: 19 Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8630 times:
Sounds like some sort of dumb marketing stunt. There wouldn't be three voters in Manhattan in favor of it, even if it were technically feasible, which it isn't, for the reasons above.
Of course, a nice heliport... now THAT might be fun! (But in Manhattan, people who live in buldings right on the crowded, noisy FDR drive STILL object that the helicopters at the existing heliports are "too loud". They go right by my window and I don't hear them through the insulation... However, the anti-development sentiment in Manhattan would like to shut down even the existing heliports.)
Anyway, nothing like a really dumb idea to get all sorts of folks unnecessarily worked up!
Jolau1701 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 205 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8589 times:
An airport in the middle of Manhattan would reek of Kai Tak part deux. I'm also wondering what the friends and relatives of 9/11 victims or people traumatized by 9/11 will be against this.
If you want my opinion, EWR is the better of NYC area airports.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17392 posts, RR: 59 Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8303 times:
Quoting QuestAir (Thread starter): But for those A.netters who live in Manhattan, how inconvenient is going JFK/LGA/EWR?
Not very.
Quoting SlcDeltaRUmd11 (Reply 2): This is probably the single worst idea i have ever heard in my life.
Quoting Rampart (Reply 8): Along those lines, I've toyed with the idea of an airport replacing the West Side docks, something like LCY. More interesting and practical than this concept.
Now that would be interesting. I don't think it will happen, though - too much stuff on the river to get in the way. The landings in IMC would be very hard to do.
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 10): That's pretty funny--the idea of an airport surrounded by buildings, and buildings that are considered obstacles as far as aircraft performance is concerned. They'd never get takeoff weights high enough to be able to carry any passengers... Nor would those obstacles allow installation of ILS systems that would be needed during those bad weather days...
Just make it like the space shuttle - vertical takeoff, and an ultra-steep approach path with arresting wires to eliminate the need for a long runway. Problem solved.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 2743 posts, RR: 12 Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8294 times:
Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 1): This is probably the single worst idea i have ever heard in my life.
Apparently you haven't heard of the idea back in the late 50s to build a new Vancouver airport at Spanish Banks, adjacent to the downtown area. Just happens to be the most popular beach area in Greater Vancouver. Like this would be well-received.
Jolau1701 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 205 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7754 times:
Quoting Rampart (Reply 8): Along those lines, I've toyed with the idea of an airport replacing the West Side docks, something like LCY. More interesting and practical than this concept.
We could call it the Chesley Sullenberger Intercontinental Airport, and the airport code cold be CSI.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17392 posts, RR: 59 Reply 19, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7601 times:
Quoting Jolau1701 (Reply 18): We could call it the Chesley Sullenberger Intercontinental Airport, and the airport code cold be CSI.
And then you could have a show about untraceable crimes at the airport.....
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2863 posts, RR: 16 Reply 20, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7573 times:
Spacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2863 posts, RR: 16 Reply 21, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7542 times:
Alright, I admit it, nobody actually said it was a good idea. I could have sworn I read "still, not a bad idea" somewhere up there before writing my post...
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
JetBlue777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 1315 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7153 times:
This will never happen! Central Park costs hundered of millions of dollars! Plus, you cant land a plane in Manhattan, it's simply dangerous. Although it will be convenient but Central Park is a New York Icon and cannot be demolished. LGA is very accesible from Manhattan. Plus three airports in the New York City vicinity is more than enough.
Directorguy From Egypt, joined Jul 2008, 1546 posts, RR: 12 Reply 23, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6494 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Great idea!
Here's why this would work:
-Central Park is valuable real estate sitting doing nothing excepting looking pretty. It should be put to good use
-A lot of rich people live in New York. They would find this very convenient
-New York-Manhattan Int'l would reduce the need, and possibly eliminate JFK, EWR, LGA and possibly everything up to YYZ.
-This is an extremely safe place. All of the high-rise skyscrappers are in Brooklyn anyway.
-With so much space, DL could relocate from Atlanta to this airport
-In fact, there'll be so much space that every airline between New York and Turkey should move their hub there
-People would rather look at AA MD80s and US CRJs than ugly-Al-Gore-ish green all day
BG777300ER From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2005, 243 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 6470 times:
Theoretically speaking...What would be the largest aircraft that could safely land at this airport using visual approach? How long would the runways be (taking into consideration safety areas not to get jetblast on the streets)? I think I read that central park is about 3 miles long so that's around 15,000ft in length which would give enough length for 747s right?
Stgs1988 From Denmark, joined Sep 2007, 54 posts, RR: 0 Reply 26, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6185 times:
Hello !
As BG777300ER is saying...
Quoting BG777300ER (Reply 24): Theoretically speaking...What would be the largest aircraft that could safely land at this airport using visual approach? How long would the runways be (taking into consideration safety areas not to get jetblast on the streets)? I think I read that central park is about 3 miles long so that's around 15,000ft in length which would give enough length for 747s right?
Could a eg. Boeing 747 land on the airport? Or are we talking about Avro RJ-100?
Moose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1791 posts, RR: 14 Reply 27, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 6144 times:
Quoting SlcDeltaRUmd11 (Reply 2): This is probably the single worst idea i have ever heard in my life.
JetBlue777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 1315 posts, RR: 1 Reply 28, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5374 times:
Wow! Most high rises in NY are not in Brooklyn, most oof them are in Midtown Manhattan near times square. This idea is completely bizzare! First of all, Central Park is one of the most valuable piece of land in New York, second since most of central park are located in a resedential are (mostly rich people), so you think that those residents won't complain? Third, millions of people every year visit central park and everyday thousands of new yorkers, like me unwind and relax in the park. Fourth, it also provides a bountiful amount of oxygen. There a billions of reason why this idea wont work.
Quoting Directorguy (Reply 23): People would rather look at AA MD80s and US CRJs than ugly-Al-Gore-ish green all day
Only aviation buffs would like to see AAMD80s and etc..... People will complain about the noise!
AussieItaliano From Italy, joined Jan 2005, 370 posts, RR: 0 Reply 29, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5138 times:
I had an idea at one point to build a tunnel from Manhattan to JFK and then use people movers (like those used at IAD when it first opened) through the tunnel to board people directly onto flights at JFK.
People would arrive at the Manhattan Center and check in for their flights, clear security, and then board a people mover that would take them directly to their aircraft. The people movers would then go through the tunnel to the airport and surface directly onto the tarmac. Then the people mover would dock onto the front-right door of the aircraft at JFK. Traditional boarding would still take place at JFK through the front-left door for those who live closer to JFK or were connecting through there.
Baggage would be checked at the Manhattan Center, and when someone was travelling to NY, they could select the Manhattan Center as their destination so that their bags would go directly there. They would go in a separate compartment on the people mover.
Contrails15 From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1084 posts, RR: 0 Reply 30, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4893 times:
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!! This just made my day. I had no idea such a project was ever discussed. This will NEVER happen and if it does, I'm moving out of NYC. I don't even wanna bash the idea because my fingers would fall off.from writing. OMG what joke.
Lufti5525 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 11 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4863 times:
I lived in New York City. And by NYC, I mean Manhattan. As a New Yorker, I can truthfully say: When pigs fly!!!!!! It must be a suggestion from someone who spends alot of time in one
of the infamous state hospitals.
San747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4884 posts, RR: 14 Reply 32, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4662 times:
This is the best thread I've seen in a LOOOOOOONG time on this site. Over 30 replies in and it appears that most of the posters still believe this is a real proposal, even to the point of seriously rebutting a sarcastic argument of why this would be a good idea.
I'll be heading out the door in a few minutes with a smile on my face!
Incitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3494 posts, RR: 17 Reply 33, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4509 times:
Funny but sarcasm gives it away in a fraction of second. They should have gone for an elevated runway. The whole thing is also very amateurish when it comes to airport projects with no clearances built onto any part of the "airport" and lots of space wasted. Central Park is about 13200 ft north-south. An elevated runway of about 5000 ft could be build in the middle section with underground facilities preserving a very large share of the park.
Victrola From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 407 posts, RR: 0 Reply 34, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4436 times:
I for one, think this is a very sensible proposal. I am sure that when the cities forfathers so wisely decided to set aside land for Central Park, they new that one day this land would be needed for an international airport. Second of all, Tavern on the Green would have the opportunity to install an observation deck and thus rival The Proud Bird at LAX. Third of all, Central Park is a piece of urban blight. Who knows what king of festerning vermin live in its trees or the water of the reservoir?
I'm sure that the only thing that will kill this excellent proposal will be when the taxi drivers band together to kill it since that will put an end to their lucrative trips out to JFK.
Idlewild From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 128 posts, RR: 0 Reply 35, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4110 times:
I have always thought that leveling the half of/the south-west portion of Staten Island would make for a great airport. Think about it. Over 15,000 acres for runways, terminals, cargo, you can use Port Mobil for fuel storage, have light rails pick up passengers from the ferry terminals. The Verrazzano Bridge feeds right into the BQE and Belt, great for commercial traffic and outer borough residents respectively. Hell! Level 3/4's and Bloomberg can get his beloved NASCAR raceway as well as a couple of stadiums in there. Eminent Domain won't cost a thing because not many people (relative to NYC) live there. EWR needs to expand? Well I say close your doors and move on in to Richmond County...all of it.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 17392 posts, RR: 59 Reply 36, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4057 times:
Quoting Victrola (Reply 34): Who knows what king of festerning vermin live in its trees or the water of the reservoir?
I don't think the airport catering companies are that picky, actually.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
ATLTPA From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 86 posts, RR: 0 Reply 37, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3959 times:
Quoting Directorguy (Reply 23): -With so much space, DL could relocate from Atlanta to this airport
You just had to bring DL into it, didn't you?
Next, the "When will Delta retire the Northwest DC-9s?" posters will start pointing out that an airport in Central Park will be a great place to use the NW 9's!
You know, perfect expansion fleet and so forth....
Dartland From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 608 posts, RR: 2 Reply 38, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3799 times:
My favorite line:
"Yet surprisingly, New York City has no viable airport. JFK, La Guardia and Newark may work for people who live in certain outer boroughs. But they are not an acceptable option for the majority of New Yorkers"
They neglect to mention that more people live in Queens and Brooklyn each than Manhattan. A large majority of "New Yorkers" live in the outer boroughs!
Not to mention calling 3 of the busiest airports in the country not viable....
I do wish they had upped the sarcasm a little. An elevated-runway to preserve the park below would be totally sweet...and maybe incorporating the museum of natural history and the metropolitan museum of art into the airport design: think blue-whale security check point and temple of dendur baggage claim....
KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 5515 posts, RR: 5 Reply 39, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3794 times:
I think everyone else is ignoring a significant part of the irony and humor in this one...kind of the reverse of what happened to CGX (Meigs Field in Chicago...). Sieze the park, and turn it into an airport (instead of the other way around)
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
Incitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3494 posts, RR: 17 Reply 40, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2930 times:
Quoting Dartland (Reply 38): They neglect to mention that more people live in Queens and Brooklyn each than Manhattan. A large majority of "New Yorkers" live in the outer boroughs!
That depends on who you ask. For some people, those who live outside of Manhattan are not New Yorkers.
JetBlue777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 1315 posts, RR: 1 Reply 41, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2841 times:
Quoting Incitatus (Reply 40): That depends on who you ask. For some people, those who live outside of Manhattan are not New Yorkers.
Most people that live in Queens are immigrants, like me
Directorguy From Egypt, joined Jul 2008, 1546 posts, RR: 12 Reply 42, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2612 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting ATLTPA (Reply 37): Next, the "When will Delta retire the Northwest DC-9s?" posters will start pointing out that an airport in Central Park will be a great place to use the NW 9's!
Indeed. Those DC9s will do wonders at New York-Manhattan, and would enable travellers to choose from multiple daily flights. It's a shame that DL will ever retire those 9s-they're so fleet efficient and I believe they're only second to the B707 in terms of efficiency anyway. I really don't know why DL's bothering with those regional 747s it got from NW anyway. When you have DC9s in the fleet, the sky is the limit. I have it on good authority from a Friend Who Works At Delta that they've applied to the DoT to start Manhattan-Sydney-Nairobi twice a day on the DC9s.
Fuzzman777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 49 posts, RR: 0 Reply 43, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2271 times:
Quoting Moose135 (Reply 12): Heavy Mad Dogs have a hard enough time getting out of LGA on hot days, I can't imagine the climb profile needed to clear the Empire State Building
this is going to be a 757-only airport UA will move their p.s. ops from JFK to here, and why not just relocate the UX flights as well
RFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 4715 posts, RR: 21 Reply 44, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2205 times:
Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 13): Quoting Moose135 (Reply 12):
Heavy Mad Dogs have a hard enough time getting out of LGA on hot days, I can't imagine the climb profile needed to clear the Empire State Building
Would be a fun takeoff
Quoting BG777300ER (Reply 24): Theoretically speaking...What would be the largest aircraft that could safely land at this airport using visual approach? How long would the runways be (taking into consideration safety areas not to get jetblast on the streets)? I think I read that central park is about 3 miles long so that's around 15,000ft in length which would give enough length for 747s right?
Measuring on Google Earth, the park is 2.55 miles long - about 13,500 feet. So with the overruns which would be required - about 10,000 feet max runway length. That is as long as Guam, Boston, Gatwick and many other airports which have heavy traffic. It is longer than Antigua or St Martin.
Another big issue would be the high buildings.
I can just see people agreeing to knock down Carnegie Hall and the Museum of Modern Art for a clearance zone south of the airport.
Rampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2329 posts, RR: 8 Reply 45, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2140 times:
Quoting Moose135 (Reply 12): Heavy Mad Dogs have a hard enough time getting out of LGA on hot days, I can't imagine the climb profile needed to clear the Empire State Building
If you made it one way in, one way out only (like a mountain airport), you could still keep 7500' of runway at the south end (a little over half the park's length, roughly). That would be a runway from 59th St. (with a huge blast fence, I presume) to the middle of The Reservoir. Assume buildings are less than 60 stories on the north end (it's Harlem, but were seeing a real estate resurgence recently, so extrapolate to the future). That will give you the potential for glide slopes less than 3°. I don't know about rates of climb, I guess it's steeper than 3°. Anyhow, consider Central Park to be like Aspen, and you could fly in Avro RJs, A318s, and E-190s.
The upside is that you could keep more than half the park! You need all that open space for the approach, and if limited to smaller jets, obviously this wouldn't be the international airport as proposed. A win win: jet convenience for Uptown, and environmental preservation for the birdwatchers!
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 365 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jun 2001, 1230 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 662 posts, 
(see the "About Us" section)
From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 2743 posts, 
From Egypt, joined Jul 2008, 1546 posts, 
From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2005, 243 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Sep 2007, 54 posts, 
From Italy, joined Jan 2005, 370 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3494 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
