Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Takeoff And Landings At SAN  
User currently offlinedldtw1962 From United States of America, joined May 2009, 393 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9428 times:

I have a question. I would like to know if a B744 can take off or land fully loaded in SAN. I know they have a short
runway. And landing in a B757 or A320 is crazy. Just like landing in a B757 is SRQ. So can a fully loaded
B744 takeoff or land in SAN without any problems? Or do they need to be half the takeoff weight?

Thanks for your help....

65 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinesw733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6321 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9418 times:

Quoting dldtw1962 (Thread starter):
I would like to know if a B744 can take off or land fully loaded in SAN

I know that BA, even with their 777's, did (always?) SAN-PHX-LHR because they could not take off with a full load from SAN and make it all the way to LHR. At least, I thought that was the case...

If so, I imagine the answer is "no", they cannot do it fully loaded with fuel.

I could be wrong...I often am.


User currently offlinedldtw1962 From United States of America, joined May 2009, 393 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9377 times:

Thnak you for answering this question. Have a great day sw733.

Chuck


User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5411 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 9314 times:

Quoting dldtw1962 (Thread starter):
I would like to know if a B744 can take off or land fully loaded in SAN. I know they have a short
runway


The problem at Lindbergh Field is NOT the length of the runway, it is the terrain surrounding the field that causes the issues with large planes taking off for long flights. Imagine placing an airport in the bottom of a salad bowl and you may be able to understand the problem.

Landing is never a problem for a 747 or anything else. (I really am not sure about the weight of a 380 so that could be an issue.) SAN has had lots of 747s in and out (and T7s as well.) We've had scheduled flights dating back years and years to UA connecting HNL and SAN (via LAX) and, as mentioned, Speedbird to PHX and LON, and many charters even recently.

A 747 fully loaded with pax, fuel and cargo for an intercontinental flight is not possible. Even the T7 on BA took a hit on payload when it flew nonstop from SAN to LHR a few years ago, generally leaving the cargo behind.

There's ongoing debate, fueled by occasional rumors, about future intercontinental service from SAN, much of it centering on the 787, which could be the answer to our terrain problems...

(IM me if you want to talk more about it.)

bb


User currently offlinedl767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 9269 times:

Quoting SANFan (Reply 3):
There's ongoing debate, fueled by occasional rumors, about future intercontinental service from SAN, much of it centering on the 787, which could be the answer to our terrain problems...

I recently talked to a higher up at SAN who is playing a large part in the expansion of SAN (sorry I can't remember his name) but he was saying that the airport is depending on the 787 to make nonstop international travel possible. He said that based on the information they've received from boeing on the 787-8 that it should be able to make fully loaded nonstop flights to Asia and Europe from SAN. So take that info with a grain of salt I guess but SAN seems to think the 787 will be possible based on the numbers available.


User currently offlinesw733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6321 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 9247 times:

Quoting SANFan (Reply 3):
The problem at Lindbergh Field is NOT the length of the runway, it is the terrain surrounding the field that causes the issues with large planes taking off for long flights

I do have a question - seeing as most times the flights take off to the west over the water, how does that create an issue? I do understand taking off east into the elevation can be tricky, but is it not more common to take off to the west and into the Pacific, followed by a (usually) left turn to go east.


User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5411 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 9199 times:

Quoting sw733 (Reply 5):
I do have a question - seeing as most times the flights take off to the west over the water, how does that create an issue?

Take a closer look at a map of the San Diego area. The runway at Lindbergh is practically next to San Diego Bay but after lifting off runway 27 (heading up and west) you have to fly over Pt. Loma (the edge of the afore-mentioned salad bowl) before you get to the beautiful blue Pacific. A few of us here have joked about borrowing a few big bulldozer and making a night visit to Pt. Loma and taking care of the problem!

And yes, when the winds shift around, taking off from runway 9 gets you to the other edge of the salad bowl even quicker!

bb


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 9184 times:

Quoting dldtw1962 (Thread starter):
I would like to know if a B744 can take off or land fully loaded in SAN.

That depends how far you are going. A 744 probably could take off with max payload but not at MTOW. SAN, unlike, say BOS which takes many 744s, is a long way from Europe though, or any viable intercontinental destination.

Another problem for SAN is that it is completely overshadowed by LAX.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25170 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 9157 times:

Quoting sw733 (Reply 1):
I know that BA, even with their 777's, did (always?) SAN-PHX-LHR because they could not take off with a full load from SAN and make it all the way to LHR. At least, I thought that was the case...

BA operated nonstop SAN-LGW between 2001 and 2003. They used the 777-200ER for the nonstop service. When they were using the 744 they operated via PHX, and when they first started service from SAN it was a DC-10-30 via LAX. BA dropped SAN in 2003 but have indicated they may reinstate service after their 787s arrive.

I believe Zoom also operated nonstop SAN-LGW using the 763 for a while before they went bust a couple of years ago.

[Edited 2010-07-13 09:49:57]

User currently offlineC767P From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 886 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 9150 times:

Quoting SANFan (Reply 3):
(I really am not sure about the weight of a 380 so that could be an issue.)

The A380 can land with no problem at SAN. The airport has stated that it is A380 ready. Departing would be an issue though.

Quoting dl767captain (Reply 4):

Everyone at the airport has been optimistic that the 787 will allow for more international service since the 787 rolled out in 2007. I think SAN is a great airport for the 787, just a matter of what airline and routes it would make sense for.

Quoting sw733 (Reply 5):
I do have a question - seeing as most times the flights take off to the west over the water, how does that create an issue?

It is the terrain off the departure end of 09. Even though 27 is in use nearly year round, it is the few times that 09 gets used for departures that you need to plan for.


User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5411 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9072 times:

Quoting dl767captain (Reply 4):
I recently talked to a higher up at SAN who is playing a large part in the expansion of SAN (sorry I can't remember his name) but he was saying that the airport is depending on the 787 to make nonstop international travel possible. He said that based on the information they've received from boeing on the 787-8 that it should be able to make fully loaded nonstop flights to Asia and Europe from SAN. So take that info with a grain of salt I guess but SAN seems to think the 787 will be possible based on the numbers available.

Here's an article that might just knock your -- and any other SAN-ophiles' who haven't seen it yet -- socks off, 'captain:
http://www.airlinesanddestinations.c...ice-to-san-diego-with-boeing-787s/
(I don't think I've posted it on this site yet. Enjoy!)

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 7):
That depends how far you are going. A 744 probably could take off with max payload but not at MTOW. SAN, unlike, say BOS which takes many 744s, is a long way from Europe though, or any viable intercontinental destination.

Another problem for SAN is that it is completely overshadowed by LAX

Oh boy, is it time for another one of those typical "SAN Intercontinental Air Service" threads? It's probably been a couple of months now...

>San Diego has the traffic and the markets to support n/s service to Europe, Asia and probably even S America; we are the largest U.S.-Europe market without nonstop service.
>SAN has -!--!- hills just off either end of our runway so that no a/c in service today can take off with a full payload for any intercontinental destination. By taking a hit on cargo or pax, carriers could fly -- have flown in fact -- overseas but profitability is doubtful.
>Zoom did very well with their short-lived SAN-LGW service in 2008 since they had a business model ("no cargo") and airplanes that made the route successful. Unfortunately, the timing was horrible and the fuel prices went crazy and the airline failed.
>As has been mentioned, the 787 may provide the solutions to our issues and we could see intercontinental service on a regular -- and long over-due -- basis in a few years.

bb


User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5411 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9014 times:

Quoting C767P (Reply 9):
The A380 can land with no problem at SAN. The airport has stated that it is A380 ready.


I didn't know that P. Thanks. So the aprons, taxiways, etc., are all thick enough. Good to hear.

But what about taxiing? They would obviously have to use the BA/T7/747-method of getting to the end of 27, otherwise they'd be knocking things over left and right!

Not that I'm imagining we will ever have the need, or the ground facilities for regular service but I guess especially when T2W-W opens, we could probably manage to handle a flight for some very special occasion...

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 8):
BA operated nonstop SAN-LGW between 2001 and 2003. They used the 777-200ER for the nonstop service


When BA "suspended" the service in the fall of '03, they were actually flying in and out of Heathrow.

There were all sorts of possible reasons the service ended but nothing was ever really confirmed. Many of the circumstances at the time (the early 2000s) have now been "fixed" or are not issues any longer so there is some optimism that Speedbird will be returning to Lindbergh in the not-too-distant future!

bb


User currently offlineC767P From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 886 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8954 times:

Quoting SANFan (Reply 11):
But what about taxiing? They would obviously have to use the BA/T7/747-method of getting to the end of 27, otherwise they'd be knocking things over left and right!

Not that I'm imagining we will ever have the need, or the ground facilities for regular service but I guess especially when T2W-W opens, we could probably manage to handle a flight for some very special occasion...

They would indeed need to taxi like a 747 does, getting onto 27 around B4 or B5 and exit on Delta.

I am fine with Lindbergh not being too A380 friendly, we don’t need that ugly thing obstructing the ramp!


User currently offlineKcrwflyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3814 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8915 times:

Quoting dldtw1962 (Thread starter):
I know they have a short
runway. And landing in a B757 or A320 is crazy. Just like landing in a B757 is SRQ.

How is landing a 757 on SRQ's 9,500ft. runway crazy? Or SAN's 9400 ft runway? That's pretty long where I come from.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8894 times:

Quoting SANFan (Reply 10):
>San Diego has the traffic and the markets to support n/s service to Europe, Asia and probably even S America; we are the largest U.S.-Europe market without nonstop service.
>SAN has -!--!- hills just off either end of our runway so that no a/c in service today can take off with a full payload for any intercontinental destination. By taking a hit on cargo or pax, carriers could fly -- have flown in fact -- overseas but profitability is doubtful.
>Zoom did very well with their short-lived SAN-LGW service in 2008 since they had a business model ("no cargo") and airplanes that made the route successful. Unfortunately, the timing was horrible and the fuel prices went crazy and the airline failed.
>As has been mentioned, the 787 may provide the solutions to our issues and we could see intercontinental service on a regular -- and long over-due -- basis in a few years.

Wow, what did i say to invoke that reaction?

I expect BA to come back, but SAN clearly isn't some kind of intercontinental Mecca. There are a lot of airports that are payload restricted in the world - particularly in Latin America - yet the services prevail. The 767, A330 and A340 shouldn't suffer too much from a 27 departure anyway.


User currently offlineXFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 4195 posts, RR: 37
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8787 times:

Quoting Kcrwflyer (Reply 13):
How is landing a 757 on SRQ's 9,500ft. runway crazy? Or SAN's 9400 ft runway? That's pretty long where I come from.

I was wondering the same thing. We operate the 757 transcon in and out of SNA (not even 6000 feet long) fully loaded everyday.



Chicks dig winglets.
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3421 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 8763 times:

Quoting Kcrwflyer (Reply 13):
How is landing a 757 on SRQ's 9,500ft. runway crazy? Or SAN's 9400 ft runway? That's pretty long where I come from.

As previously mentioned it's not the runway itself it's the surrounding terrain that you have to clear. It's up close and personal. Basically, the same problem with Brown Field (SBM) high terrain all around .



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1253 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 8705 times:

Quoting SANFan (Reply 6):
A few of us here have joked about borrowing a few big bulldozer and making a night visit to Pt. Loma and taking care of the problem!

Funny, I had the same idea except it wasn't Point Loma but the bay off the strand. Fill it up with sand and bingo, just watch out for the bridge!

Quoting SANFan (Reply 11):

There were all sorts of possible reasons the service ended but nothing was ever really confirmed.

According to both flight attendants and the pilots of my flight back in August of 03', it was the lack of cargo they could carry. While our flight was FULL, they stated they make most of the money via cargo.

Quoting C767P (Reply 12):
I am fine with Lindbergh not being too A380 friendly, we don’t need that ugly thing obstructing the ramp!

Nice thing about SAN is even if we did have a larger and more comfortable airport, I don't think our city justifies an A380. I think the largest would be a 773, or at very most an 748i, but most likely the 772 and smaller would be the norm.



Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlineSANMAN66 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 789 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8606 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting C767P (Reply 9):
The airport has stated that it is A380 ready

It is? That's news to me! I'm not sure the jetways are high enough to service an A380.I know LAX and a few other airports had to modify their terminals and strengthen the runways / taxiways just to service those behemoths.
If a 380 were to takeoff from SAN using the so called "Lindy hop" across the runway, aren't the A380's wingspan longer than a 747 or a 777? Is the runway strong enough?
We most likely won't see an A380 here,but it sure would be a sight to see in person!
  



PSA Gives you a lift!
User currently offlineSANMAN66 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 789 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8560 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dldtw1962 (Thread starter):
And landing in a B757 or A320 is crazy.

Landing @ SAN is no different than landing anywhere else. The downtown buildings
are not as close as they appear. I've flown on 767's,DC-10's,and L-10-11's into SAN,
and the ride is still the same as an A320,or a 737. I flew on a WN 737 into Love Field
and the tallest buildings in Dallas looked way closer than the ones near SAN.



PSA Gives you a lift!
User currently offlineC767P From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 886 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8520 times:

Quoting SANMAN66 (Reply 18):
It is?

Everyone I have talked to who works for the airport says it is. They have never gone into details about that. So I am not sure about gates or parking spaces. It might be that the A380 would be required to park near the base of the tower.


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4782 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8478 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have a hard time believing SAN is A380 ready considering most airports that currently handle the A380 underwent major work to be able to do so. But I haven't heard anything either way, so I can't say whether SAN is capable or not.

Quoting sw733 (Reply 5):
do have a question - seeing as most times the flights take off to the west over the water, how does that create an issue? I do understand taking off east into the elevation can be tricky, but is it not more common to take off to the west and into the Pacific, followed by a (usually) left turn to go east.
Quoting SANFan (Reply 6):
And yes, when the winds shift around, taking off from runway 9 gets you to the other edge of the salad bowl even quicker!
Quoting C767P (Reply 9):
It is the terrain off the departure end of 09. Even though 27 is in use nearly year round, it is the few times that 09 gets used for departures that you need to plan for.

The interesting thing about runway 09 ops is that it's almost always a result of poor visibility for 27 arrivals and not because of winds. Therefore, even when runway 09 is being used for arrivals and most departures, departures affected by a weight penalty on 09 will in fact depart on 27. So a day where all departures must depart 09 is the rarest day of all for SAN.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1776 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 8456 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'd expect to see additional international service from SAN once the 78x's become plentiful. The IGW 777's for BA did fly with good loads but we're gimped via the cargo restrictions which pinched profits too much. With the 788 online, BA and likely other carriers based in Europe (and possibly S.America or Asia) will take a look at SAN service.

As a native San Diegan, I would be happy to pay a bit more to fly out of SAN than go via LAX or points east if I still lived there.


User currently offlineSANMAN66 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 789 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 8406 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 17):
I don't think our city justifies an A380. I think the largest would be a 773, or at very most an 748i, but most likely the 772 and smaller would be the

Agreed.
There's less than a handful of US airports that justifies A380 service. San Diego is more of a 767,777,and hopefully
a 787 town.

Quoting C767P (Reply 20):
It might be that the A380 would be required to park near the base of the tower.

I was thinking the same thing. Maybe they could bring one here for a special occasion,like SANFan said,
but not for regular service.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 17):
According to both flight attendants and the pilots of my flight back in August of 03', it was the lack of cargo they could carry. While our flight was FULL, they stated they make most of the money via cargo.

I've been asking this question about the cargo issue in quite a few threads about BA's SAN/cargo issue. Does
BA shuttle a lot of cargo from LAS to LHR? The most cargo I see on this route are people. Maybe someone here
can tell me.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 11):
When BA "suspended" the service in the fall of '03, they were actually flying in and out of Heathrow.
There were all sorts of possible reasons the service ended but nothing was ever really confirmed.

Agreed.
Until we hear from BA officials as to why they stopped service, everything else is just specuation and hearsay.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 10):
http://www.airlinesanddestinations.c...ice-to-san-diego-with-boeing-787s/

This article seems to suggest that suspension was due to economics,and not SAN's runway deficiencies.



PSA Gives you a lift!
User currently offlineSANMAN66 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 789 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 8377 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 14):
but SAN clearly isn't some kind of intercontinental Mecca.

True.
A flight to Europe and a flight to Asia is all we really need. We already got Mexico and Canada
covered.



PSA Gives you a lift!
25 timz : So all this talk about Point Loma is hooey? (The trees to the west are maybe 250 ft above the runway, 6500-7000? feet from the west end of the runway
26 Silver1SWA : No. Point Loma offers some restrictions, it's just that fewer flights/routes are affected.
27 AADC10 : They have been saying that forever, partially as an excuse to not build a new airport. It will probably be years before the new international flights
28 SANMAN66 : I was referring to the ride into SAN. You're correct. It does have the displaced threshold,but I was saying that there's no wild turns or anything li
29 Post contains links timz : The 1964 pic at http://historicaerials.com shows the rwy 27 threshold maybe 1200 ft east of where it is now; by 1972 it had shifted west. Did the rule
30 mtnwest1979 : If they are hoping for 787s to provide ability to get somewhere worthwhile nonstop from SAN, I guess next thing is to hope that the airlines that are
31 Post contains images Eightball : I flew on DL Connection yesterday from SAN to LAX as part of my trip from SAN to GFK, and I could see the difference between the two airports in terms
32 N92R03 : Quoting SANMAN66 (Reply 19): Landing @ SAN is no different than landing anywhere else. Also, isn't the rate of descent more approaching 27? Something
33 SANFan : Let me clarify something here. Pt. Loma's elevation/terrain is the concern when we are talking about why a fully-loaded jumbo cannot take off from Lin
34 SANMAN66 : I meant the ride into SAN is no different.Yes I'm well aware of the terrain on approach and the displaced threshold. As I stated in post# 28,as a pas
35 Post contains links C680 : There is no GS for 27 at SAN, only a LOC. For the full ILS you need to us runway 9, and IIRC, thats what they do in foggy weather. The visual PAPI is
36 StarAC17 : SAN has a 9,400 ft runway at nearly sea level so that isn't the issue. You should see YYZ where it 6R/24L is 9000 ft and 6L/24R is 9500ft and those t
37 Post contains links and images SLCUT2777 : Here's a good passenger perspective from an inbound DL 752 from SLC: SAN does see wide-bodies, and this HA 763ER to HNL is no exception:
38 SANMAN66 : I'm trying to imagine the huge number of spotters and crowds near the end of runway 27 waiting to catch a glimpse of the flying whale if it was ever
39 SLCGuy : How do figure this? Other than a good view of downtown on final to 9000 ft+ Rw 27. Flew thru SAN on a DL L-1011 from SLC continuing on to HNL years a
40 SLCGuy : How do you figure this? Other than a good view of downtown while on final to 9000 ft+ Rw 27 there is nothing crazy about it! Flew thru SAN years ago
41 Oshkosh1 : Wasn't there rumour a few years ago that SAN would pull up stakes and take over the old Mirimar NAS...in order to expand? I know that Austin took over
42 bjorn14 : How is the binational airport at TIJ going? Will San Diegans be willing to drive down there?
43 dldtw1962 : I have heard that SAN wants to move to the air field in Myramar? And that is dead in the water. Is that true? And why would people not want the Airpor
44 SLCGuy : And face the hassle and gridlock at the border crossing, especially on the return trip. Don't think so!
45 bjorn14 : The US border is like a hundred yards from the runway...they would build a US terminal on that side...I think there was a plan to have a some kind of
46 Silver1SWA : The Marines said NO.
47 SANMAN66 : And lots of NIMBYs in the area too.
48 ChrisNH : Going East gives those flights a boost because they are going with prevailing winds.
49 SVO767 : I have often noticed the FedEx A310 take off in the early evening only using about 1/4 of the runway. I am estimating that 1/4 length but if you park
50 Post contains links Dokfdoe : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R2vr6uG9W8
51 C767P : Miriam is a MCAS now, not sure when they took it over from the Navy, but it’s a Marine base now. In 2006 voters decided against relocating Lindberg
52 Post contains links and images C767P : Sitting in that location gives a little illusion of where exactly they rotate. Where the Teledyne Ryan buildings start is about where the runway star
53 Silver1SWA : Working at SAN for 5 years, I hate the location. It is such a b**ch for someone that must drive to and from every day! The lack of direct freeway acc
54 C767P : I agree the lack of direct freeway access is a problem, as that traffic on Harbor Dr can is a problem. At the same time though, this is also what hel
55 SVO767 : Maybe I wasn't very clear in my description. When standing in the parking lot at Laurel and Harbor, I can actually see the full body of the FedEx pla
56 SVO767 : I don't see how there's a lack of direct freeway access. Leaving the airport requires about 2 turns to take Harbor directly to the 5. Better than a l
57 Post contains images AAR90 : FedEx (and UPS) planes normally operate on the very light weight side of their operating envelope. They usually "space out" long before they "weight
58 LAXintl : That might be the ONT-SAN-ONT flight you are seeing. FX has multiple such short hops in SoCal including LAX-BUR and LAX-SNA.
59 SonomaFlyer : Because of the NIMBY'ism gripping San Diego residents, the opportunity to move SAN to a different facility passed. NAS (now MCAS) Miramar would've bee
60 Silver1SWA : You're not serious right? Most airports have a dedicated freeway exit leading to them. The closest freeway entrance and exit is on the complete oppos
61 Post contains images RJ111 : Ahh no problem. Should be flying LHR-SAN later this year actually, though i shall laugh in the face of direct services and be hoping to maximise flig
62 Post contains links LAXintl : I'm sorry, but what explosive growth are you referring to? If its population, San Diego region population has seen modest growth. About 50% in 30 yea
63 StarAC17 : That is enough to land a 777 or a 744 is it not? Provided its normal landing circumstances. I presume for takeoffs, that full distance is available.
64 anonms : You have to be kidding me. Harbor, Laurel, and Grape are often so traffic-laden that I've started taking Rosecrans instead, which, while less congest
65 AAR90 : Yes. They used to operate here regularly. Yes, full distance is available for takeoffs; However, most flights are "climb limited." Meaning the terrai
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...
History Q: Northeastern And PEOPLExpress At SAN? posted Wed May 14 2003 17:02:37 by Lindy field
Parallel Landings At LHR And Elsewhere? posted Thu Nov 10 2005 22:27:20 by Timz
Takeoff And Landing Patterns At CVG posted Tue Apr 15 2003 04:33:58 by Strickerje
748 And 787 At Farnborough posted Wed Mar 17 2010 05:11:58 by shankly
Pilots Fault For Aborted Takeoff Into Emas At CRW posted Wed Feb 10 2010 11:27:12 by MainRunway
Unmarked MD-80 At SAN (With DHS Bus) posted Sat Jan 23 2010 15:05:19 by DL767captain
Delta 747 At SAN posted Thu Dec 31 2009 11:56:54 by Dl767captain
DL Schedule And A/C Type At ORD posted Tue Dec 29 2009 21:24:12 by Mayor
Spotter Alert: DL B744 And A330 At MCO posted Tue Dec 29 2009 13:59:28 by Oceanic
AC To Add Service At SAN? posted Wed Dec 9 2009 15:51:15 by SANFan