Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Burbank Airport Land  
User currently offlinekaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2413 posts, RR: 3
Posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4025 times:

http://www.airliners.net/photo//1729178/L/
This is a recent picture of Burbank airport, which has a very old and cramped terminal that is very dangerously close to a runway.

There seems to be a very large and empty piece of land on the east side of the airport, around and behind the control tower. What is that land for? and can/will they build something useful (a new terminal) there?

37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3256 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3999 times:

Quoting kaitak744 (Thread starter):
http://www.airliners.net/photo//1729178/L/
This is a recent picture of Burbank airport, which has a very old and cramped terminal that is very dangerously close to a runway.

There seems to be a very large and empty piece of land on the east side of the airport, around and behind the control tower. What is that land for? and can/will they build something useful (a new terminal) there?

The land you see once belonged to Lockheed.

Unfortunately no need to get ur hopes up. I'm not an expert on this airport; however IIRC the airport authority once proposed a new terminal for that parcel. It was turned down by the city, and is now being redeveloped as a non-aviation development.

So that 'very dangerously' located terminal will be the status quo at BUR; I imagine city hall would like it closed all together just like nice folks over at SMO.



FLYi
User currently offlinem404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2231 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3959 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

That empty space was where they built Electras and Orions among the later planes. Behind the parking structures SE of that tiny terminal was the famous "Skunk Works". Occasionally one could blimps a U2 or before they were common knowledge the wooden and metal jigs that belied it's shape.

And yes, it's true, the city seems bent on keeping it small and lower usage by not providing the obvious upgrades. I thought I'd heard that a suit was being considered concerning federal rules that spoke to the concern you mention about the runway and the terminal spacing but somehow it was "grandfathered" in. Meaning, one might argue, that the Feds would have to say that THEY erred allowing it to be built that way so they themselves might be a responsible party so they let it stand as having been built before the rule was changed. That seems so odd where aviation safety is so highly touted. Just my slant.



Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 3759 times:

Quoting kaitak744 (Thread starter):
This is a recent picture of Burbank airport, which has a very old and cramped terminal that is very dangerously close to a runway.


The terminal is not in the pictue. The terminal is just east of the intersection on the runways, just off the lower right hand side of the picture.

Quoting m404 (Reply 2):
That empty space was where they built Electras and Orions among the later planes.


Lockheed Plant B-6 was located to the right of the tower. The two main buildings 304 and 309/310 were located in the big empty space.

The following site shows the layout of all the old Lockheed Burbank plants.

http://www.godickson.com/locpla1.htm


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 3688 times:

I would not single out any specific city as itself being opposed to modernization work, as the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority – owner and operator of Bob Hope Airport has actively been pushing for various projects the last several decades.

The stumbling block has really been the local community and voters, which culminated in a 2001 ballot measure "Restore Our Airport Rights" which passed overwhelmingly that bars projects the airport without prior voter approval, making hopes for something new really socially impossible to achieve.

As far as the vacated land you mention, the 130-acre property known as "B6 site" was basically gifted back the airport authority by Lockheed, and plans were drawn up for a Spanish style 330,000sq ft. terminal that would have 19 gates (later reduced to 14 to match current number).

The biggest ongoings task by the cities and community today is ways to overcome the 2009 FAA rejection of a part-161 hard curfew at the airport, and to creatively achieve nighttime noise relief which affects a large swath of the Valley including the City of Los Angeles due to the bowl nature of the topography around the airport.

Yes the Federal government have raised various safety concerns about the airport, primarily the airport terminal being 400-ft too close to the runways, but unless the Federal government can act to lets say bar operations on safety grounds(which would be a gift from heaven to much of the community), I don't see much happening.

[Edited 2010-06-24 09:45:48]


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinemtnwest1979 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 2485 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 3607 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 3):
The terminal is not in the pictue. The terminal is just east of the intersection on the runways, just off the lower right hand side of the picture.

..................ummm, yes it is. And not only that, the WHOLE is terminal ,lol.
But you have to scroll over to see it.



"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
User currently offlinewedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5951 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 3567 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I like the location of BUR's terminals. At least you're not taxiing halfway across the country to get to the terminal after landing. Also, it's reminiscent of the movie National Lampoon's Vacation where Chevy Chase flies off the freeway and into a parking lot of a hotel saying "Well, we're here!" Besides, it's one of a few remaining airports that you can walk out onto the tarmac for boarding/deplaning.

User currently offlineStrandedInBGM From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 349 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 3505 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 3):
The terminal is not in the pictue. The terminal is just east of the intersection on the runways, just off the lower right hand side of the picture.

Incorrect. The terminal is in the picture on the right side, located near the middle vertically. Near the intersection of the two runways.



It's 737s, 747s and 380s. Not 737's, 747's and 380's. Learn to use the apostrophe for crying out loud.
User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4528 posts, RR: 33
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 3487 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 3):
The terminal is not in the pictue. The terminal is just east of the intersection on the runways, just off the lower right hand side of the picture.

The terminal is very much in the picture Kaitak744 linked. It is in the center right. An AA MD-80 is parked in front of it.

Quoting m404 (Reply 2):
Meaning, one might argue, that the Feds would have to say that THEY erred allowing it to be built that way so they themselves might be a responsible party so they let it stand as having been built before the rule was changed. That seems so odd where aviation safety is so highly touted. Just my slant.

The core building of the terminal was built in 1939, long before contemporary runway-spacing regulations were in place.

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 6):
Besides, it's one of a few remaining airports that you can walk out onto the tarmac for boarding/deplaning.

Which I think is extremely cool. Does WN still have the outdoor canopied baggage claim?

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):
The stumbling block has really been the local community and voters, which culminated in a 2001 ballot measure "Restore Our Airport Rights" which passed overwhelmingly that bars projects the airport without prior voter approval, making hopes for something new really socially impossible to achieve.

Something is very, very wrong with a situation where NIMBY's can block expansion on a crucial piece of airport infrastructure--one that affects the entire region and has national importance in helping get people in and out of the LA Basin. They are not the only people affected, and they should not have sole say.

To be clear: I didn't say they should have *no* say. And the airport needs to make its best effort to minimize impacts (like enforcing the current 'soft' curfew more firmly; is that still an issue?). Just not *sole* say. A new terminal at BUR would be a good thing--a "gift from heaven," one might say--to the millions of travelers who use the airport and help make its economic contribution to the area.

The sad thing is that a new terminal with the same number of gates, at an airport with the same number and length of runways, could not even lead to expansion. Even the SNA NIMBY's understood that well enough to let the 1990-ish new terminal there be built. And it looks like the long-overdue expansion of LGB's terminal is going to proceed, too.

There used to be a fine model of the proposed BUR Mission-style terminal in the ticket lobby; it wasn't there the last time I visited BUR in 2007. It was to be a tasteful rectangular building with red tile roof, a single-level approach road, and two perpendicular concourses, each with seven gates, one at each end. There were accurate scale model planes including AS MD-80's.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):
The biggest ongoings task by the cities and community today is ways to overcome the 2009 FAA rejection of a part-161 hard curfew at the airport, and to creatively achieve nighttime noise relief which affects a large swath of the Valley including the City of Los Angeles due to the bowl nature of the topography around the airport.

Other airports, like DCA, have curfews. I'm sure if the community drafts one that is in compliance with Federal law, the FAA will approve it.

Jim

[Edited 2010-06-24 11:00:35]


Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 3423 times:

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 8):
Something is very, very wrong with a situation where NIMBY's can block expansion on a crucial piece of airport infrastructure

At the end of the day, any project any where in America must be approved by elected officials, and with a very toxic community mood elected bodies they would be committing political suicide by proceeding with projects at BUR with or without the existence of the 2001 ballot measure.

No community support = no project.

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 8):
Other airports, like DCA, have curfews. I'm sure if the "community" drafts one that is in compliance with Federal law, the FAA will approve it.

Actually no. Since adoption of the Federal Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (ANCA) local communities have lost the ability to establish new noise ordinances except thru a cumbersome Part-161 process study which as BUR found out is almost impossible to achieve after 7 year and millions spent.

Not a single new airport noise ordinance has been put on the books in the last 20-years in the US and ones grandfathered such as LGB cannot be modified leaving things like 20-year old economic fines in places. This act in my view is quite tragic in BUR case as the continued flaunting of the voluntary BUR curfew only continues to fuel community angst against the airport.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4528 posts, RR: 33
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 3287 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):
Not a single new airport noise ordinance has been put on the books in the last 20-years in the US and ones grandfathered such as LGB cannot be modified leaving things like 20-year old economic fines in places. This act in my view is quite tragic in BUR case as the continued flaunting of the voluntary BUR curfew only continues to fuel community angst against the airport.

Interesting. I think we've discussed ANCA before, and I had forgotten about it. Sorry to hear that's still going on at BUR. You'd think BUR mangement would recognize that it is in their interest to respect the voluntary curfew. It's not like the airport is so capacity choked that they would need to go later than curfew just to get flights out.

I understand having a federal law governing curfews, however, for interstate commerce reasons.

Jim



Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1407 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 3264 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):
Something is very, very wrong with a situation where NIMBY's can block expansion on a crucial piece of airport infrastructure--one that affects the entire region and has national importance in helping get people in and out of the LA Basin. They are not the only people affected, and they should not have sole say.

Let them expand, then let the local voters shut it down completely.

The airport is ultimately owned by local cities and the voters could revolt and turn it into condos. SNA & LGB are similar, but at least have slot controls.

How would you like to Nationalize this airport? Or make it so the owners don't have final say?


User currently offlineBoeing1970 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 3221 times:

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 8):
Other airports, like DCA, have curfews. I'm sure if the community drafts one that is in compliance with Federal law, the FAA will approve it.

The government put the kibosh on curfews after California went ape nuts with them at SNA, LGB, SAN, SJC, OAK, and BUR. Amazing the amount of airport capacity that has been crushed by curfews when you think about it. None of them have a snowballs chance in hell of being repealed either because they were the result of lawsuits. One fo the most shortsighted actions ever taken in aviation history. Now a days it buy and level or soundproof.


User currently offlinewedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5951 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 3158 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 12):
The government put the kibosh on curfews after California went ape nuts with them at SNA, LGB, SAN, SJC, OAK, and BUR.

I've lived near OAK all my life and never heard of them having a curfew ever!


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 3136 times:

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 10):
You'd think BUR mangement would recognize that it is in their interest to respect the voluntary curfew.

Management is doing everything including things like placing signs by the runways to remind folks not to take off prior to 7am, but its the airline and GA community that comes and goes as they wish.

I don't live anywhere close to BUR, but do have friends in the area and I can tell you that come later in the evening as the ambient community noise drops, flight activity from BUR can echo across large portions of the Valley. I've heard it with my own ears and could almost swear the airport was only a couple blocks away instead of miles but the topography makes it worse for a larger area.
Quoting ADent (Reply 11):
The airport is ultimately owned by local cities and the voters could revolt and turn it into condos

Amen to that. Look at LGB, portions of airport property has been designated for housing and other mixed use applications in last few years.

Fast forward 20-30 years, I could well see many of these community airports be no more. Sadly airport operations in many ways is no longer compatible with other more socially acceptable land uses.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinewedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5951 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3029 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14):
Management is doing everything including things like placing signs by the runways to remind folks not to take off prior to 7am, but its the airline and GA community that comes and goes as they wish.

The few times I've stayed at the Burbank Airport Marriott, the only I ever saw departing before 7am was US Airways 733. Southwest Airlines didn't waste any time taking off right at 7am, though.


User currently offlineWJ From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 349 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3010 times:

The airporrt does not have a curfew but the authority STRONGLY encourages carriers not to operate scheduled activity between 2200-0700


146,727,732,733,734,735,73G,738,739,742,743,744,752,753,762,763,764,772,300,310,319,320,321,330,343,DC9,D10,MD11,M80,E17
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3256 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2957 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14):
I could well see many of these community airports be no more. Sadly airport operations in many ways is no longer compatible with other more socially acceptable land uses.

I would add the word "perceived" in that sentence. "Sadly airport operations in many ways is no longer perceived to be compatible with other more socially acceptable land uses."

What I mean is I think there is a lack of education amongst the local population (in any city) as it relates to the benefits of an airport vs yet another strip mall. Does the LA area really need another strip mall or condo development? It might look nice at first, but in 20 years will look just like all the others and not provide a greater economic benefit to the area, unlike what BUR and LGB have done for 80+ years.



FLYi
User currently offlineC767P From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 893 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 2941 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14):
Management is doing everything including things like placing signs by the runways to remind folks not to take off prior to 7am, but its the airline and GA community that comes and goes as they wish.

Voluntary is not mandatory! Be reasonable with request to get people to honor them. 7:00 am is not reasonable…

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 14):
Fast forward 20-30 years, I could well see many of these community airports be no more. Sadly airport operations in many ways is no longer compatible with other more socially acceptable land uses.

In SoCal that could be…since NIBMY’s are so against the airports, even though the NIMBY’s came well after the airports. If only people realized the value an airport brings to their community.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2898 times:

Quoting C767P (Reply 18):
Be reasonable with request to get people to honor them. 7:00 am is not reasonable…

  7am is not reasonable? Same thing in place at LGB and SNA.

Anyhow as I type this I see 8 aircraft headed into BUR tonight way past the 10pm voluntary curfew.
AMF229 OAK-BUR 22:42
SWA2365 PHX-BUR 22:47
SWA1679 PHX-BUR 23:24
AWE480 PHX-BUR 23:28
USC721 VGT-BUR 23:36
AMF270 OAK-BUR 23:47
AMF137 PHX-BUR 00:13
JBU359 JFK-BUR 02:38

Now talk about why the community is up in arms.

Quoting C767P (Reply 18):
If only people realized the value an airport brings to their community.

Which is what?

Obvious negatives are traffic, noise and pollution. By US funding laws, airports dont generate profits or financial windfalls for the community being brake even enterprises.
You can say they create employment, but so could any number of alternate uses, which in reality could provide actual strong tax revenue sources for cities which airports cant.

I dont know the numbers for BUR, but I recall someone in the 90s figured in the case of LGB, that if all the land was parcelled and sold off by the City for non-airport uses it would generate north of a Billion dollars in upfront income for the City, plus ongoing revenue stream dependent on the various types of uses.
Now imagine what communities could do with such a huge economic shot in the arm? Be like hitting the lotto.

Having been around the airport operations for 30-odd years here in SoCal, many cities and residents look at their their local fields as nothing more then a pest basically.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3256 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 2880 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 19):

Obvious negatives are traffic, noise and pollution.

And subdividing a large parcel will increase traffic and pollution even more; not to mention add a tax burden for maintenance of all the new roads, sewers, etc - an additional cost to the city because if it stays an airport those costs are already covered by the users (airlines, etc).

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 19):
I recall someone in the 90s figured in the case of LGB, that if all the land was parcelled and sold off by the City for non-airport uses it would generate north of a Billion dollars in upfront income for the City, plus ongoing revenue stream dependent on the various types of uses.
Now imagine what communities could do with such a huge economic shot in the arm? Be like hitting the lotto.

LGB economic impact is $9.2 billion in 2003, and that's while still retaining ownership (no one time sell off)! Talk about hitting the lotto!  

(table on page 4)
http://www.longbeach.gov/civica/inc/displayblobpdf2.asp?BlobID=9032

Long Beach city hit the jackpot and they apparently don't even know it.

This is compounded economic impact, which reaches far beyond the revenue that must be "break even"; or reinvested in the airport. Now of course not all those employees live in Long Beach, but at the same time I'm sure that there are employees at LAX and SNA that do, so the general idea of closing airports as an economic gain is a mirage IMHO.

Bob Hope generated $3.9 billion

(page 3)
http://www.valleyofthestars.net/Libr...Airport_Economic_Impact_Report.pdf

[Edited 2010-06-24 23:51:45]


FLYi
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 2780 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 20):
LGB economic impact is $9.2 billion in 2003, and that's while still retaining ownership (no one time sell off)! Talk about hitting the lotto!
Quoting PITrules (Reply 20):
Bob Hope generated $3.9 billion

And who is to say the replacement uses cant, or wont generate the same or more?

I mean a single movie theater complex can have an economic impact north of $100 million annually, the 10-year benefit a large office building seeking approval is estimated $942mil.
The loss of replacement of an airport does not mean a community goes from something to nothing.

So for many of these smaller communities I reckon non-airport uses would be much more beneficial long term then hogging the land today for aviation usage which is a marginal business for city coffers and a headache for residents.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineC767P From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 893 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week ago) and read 2754 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 19):
7am is not reasonable?

Nope. None of these airports are new, people have built up around them. They knew what they were getting into when they moved in.

I do pay attention to noise abetment procedures and times – however when you look at 7:00 am to 10:00 pm, its all about the NIMBY. Give a little on each end and people might respect it.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 19):
Which is what?

Besides dollar value that PITrules mentioned, I would say the rest of the value really is unknown. How many business are located in a community because of an airport? There are others, however, I have a feeling that there is not much point in going there since you will argue each of them. I would guess the answer to LA and aviation all sits with LAX? Just close up everything not LAX and everything would be better?

GA is extremely undervalued. More so in SoCal where everyone not involved in it wants to close up every airport they can.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week ago) and read 2740 times:

Quoting C767P (Reply 22):
I would guess the answer to LA and aviation all sits with LAX? Just close up everything not LAX and everything would be better?

No not at all, and the community and airport authority has made clear that LAX is not the answer or dumping ground for SoCal.

However from all these local communities with airports I can definitely see their issues, and strongly sympathize with them.

(oh - and the argument that an airport was here first is not realistic nor does it give credit to the fact that people and communities can decide on land use matters as time goes on. Just because a former orchard field turned into and airport, does not mean down the road it can become a golf course, mall, single family homes, or playground. Land use is an ever evolving calculus, much at the desires of the citizenry via their elected officials)



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineBoeing1970 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 1 week ago) and read 2719 times:

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 13):
I've lived near OAK all my life and never heard of them having a curfew ever!


When an airport or a component of that airport is made unavailable for a period of time or prohibits a type of operation, it is a curfew.

Additional Remarks:

- FOR NOISE ABATEMENT INFORMATION CTC NOISE ABATEMENT OFFICE AT (510) 563-6463.
- RY 15/33 CLSD TO AIR CARRIER ACFT.
- NOISE ABATEMENT: 24 HR RESTRICTION TURBO-PROP ACFT OVER 17,000 LBS, ALL JET ACFT AND 4-ENGINE PISTON ACFT PROHIBITED FM TKOF RYS 27L, 27R OR LNDGS RYS 09L, 09R.
- PREFERENTIAL RY USE PROGRAM IN EFFECT 2200-0600. NORTH FLD PREFERRED ARR RY 27L, NORTH FLD PREFERRED DEP RYS 09R OR 27R. IF THESE RYS UNACCEPTABLE FOR SAFETY OR ATC INSTRUCTION THEN RY 11/29 MUST BE USED.
- NOISE PROHIBITIONS NOT APPLICABLE IN EMERG OR WHENEVER RY 11/29 IS CLSD DUE TO MAINT, SAFETY, WINDS OR WEATHER.
- ACFT WITH EXPERIMENTAL OR LIMITED CERTIFICATION HAVING OVER 1000 HORSEPOWER OR 4000 LBS ARE RESTRICTED TO RY 11/29.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KOAK

[Edited 2010-06-25 08:57:05]

25 SANMAN66 : The saddest thing about all of this, these same people do not want to be educated about the benefits an airport can bring to the table. They'd rather
26 AADC10 : As a user of the Bob Hope Airport, I would love nothing better than to see it improved but I can understand why residents oppose it. The benefits of
27 wedgetail737 : Understood...however, noise-abatement policies at OAK calls for flights departing Runway 29 to head over the Bay up to a certain time. But it does no
28 Post contains images SurfandSnow : Old? Maybe by international standards, but plenty of U.S. airports still fully utilize aging dilapidated terminals - think ORD T2, DCA Terminal A, or
29 wedgetail737 : I see that a lot of people pick on BUR a lot. Well, BUR is one of the easiest L.A. airports to deal with. Also, it has quite a bit of nostalgia along
30 spacecadet : Can you list these benefits? My guess is that about 99% of them have to do with growth. (Yes, more money = growth, because city governments don't jus
31 Post contains links and images 474218 : Your both correct I did not scroll over. However, if the photo had been up-loaded correctly scrolling over would not be required: View Large View Med
32 Post contains images texan : To clarify this, BUR has restrictions in place for most operations between 2200-0700. BUR wanted all operations stopped between those hours. I know y
33 LAXintl : No Santa Monica has not try to close the airport. What they want to do is eliminate/slow the growing shift towards jet-traffic at the historic GA air
34 MarcoPoloWorld : So what, then, is your suggested solution??
35 texan : Santa Monica did attempt to close the airport. City officials reached a deal with the F.A.A. to keep the airport open until a certain date that I can
36 Post contains links LAXintl : We must be speaking about two different SNA and LGB airports. Late night air carrier operations are not allowed at either, and in the matter of fact
37 cschleic : Indeed it is a fun feature. LGB still is outside, too, and so is the old terminal at SJC, at least until it closes in a couple of days (including its
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...
Bob Hope Airport (Burbank Airport) posted Sat Aug 20 2005 00:54:19 by Thelowfarehero
Burbank Airport -- First Time posted Fri Mar 12 2004 06:36:30 by Carfield
Burbank Airport posted Thu Jul 20 2000 20:26:24 by Aircrane43
Burbank Airport posted Thu Jul 20 2000 19:20:34 by Aircrane43
Burbank Airport + United 727-200's! posted Mon May 8 2000 09:12:36 by B737-112
Airport Closed, Pilot Wants To Land, Who Decides? posted Sat Feb 20 2010 16:32:13 by shamrock321
Article-Ontario Airport An Expensive Place To Land posted Sun Mar 29 2009 12:18:48 by FATFlyer
Bruce Willis Wants To Donate Land For Airport posted Wed Sep 3 2008 18:04:21 by Ridgid727
Santorin Airport - Can A Widebody Land There? posted Wed Sep 28 2005 22:55:51 by Mozart
Bush On Long Island...what Airport Did He Land At posted Thu Mar 11 2004 23:08:17 by Dragon-wings