Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Lawmakers Push For Stricter BUR & VNY Curfews  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25416 posts, RR: 49
Posted (1 year 4 months 20 hours ago) and read 4503 times:

California legislators have introduced a bill which would allow for Burbank’s Bob Hope Airport and Los Angeles Van Nuys Airport to put into place night-time curfew between 10pm and 7am.

Today both airports have partial and voluntary curfews which are largely ignored by the airline and GA community.

This latest legislation which would exempt both airports from the 1990s Federal Airport Noise and Capacity Act that has made it harder for local communities to impose new non-grand fathered restrictions and is also intended to open the door and create a path for other airports around the nation to gain their own exemptions also.

Bill is the latest part of a 40-year effort by Valley cities like Burbank to limit airport noise and operations.

Stories:
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?se...=news/local/los_angeles&id=9113000
and
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news...legislation-help-bob-hope-van-nuys

=


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
66 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineawacsooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1915 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 16 hours ago) and read 4333 times:

This should go over well...

The airport has been around longer than those NIMBY's have...if they want to lose capital by restricting business, go for it. I just don't want to hear any whining when WN starts yanking flights left and right cause they can't make BUR work anymore due to these stupid restrictions.


User currently offlinen471wn From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1541 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 15 hours ago) and read 4316 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

another example of environmental whacko's who have ruined our state......

User currently offlinebradmovie From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 14 hours ago) and read 4250 times:

Folks, these first two responses show a lot of ignorance. I am hardly an "environmental whacko", nor do I have any interest in hurting anyone's business. This issue has nothing to do with the environment or business at all. As someone who lives less than 5 miles from BUR, and lives between BUR and VNY, I can tell you this is a noise issue, plane and simple (pun intended). No one is talking about shutting down any airports.

When you are trying to sleep at 12 or 1AM and a very noisy corporate jet takes off right over your house -- heck, when you are simply trying to watch tv at 10 or 11pm and you can't hear it at all, that is a problem. And when you can't even sit in your patio at dinnertime because of literally constant jet and copter traffic, that is no fun at all. And that happens all the time. It is bad enough putting up with all the takeoffs between 7am and 10pm, and there are regular departures that go on for hours after 10pm. And I'm sorry, I don't buy the argument at all that if poor WN can't have 6am or 11pm takeoffs from BUR they won't be able to make Burbank work. They have been here for as long as they have existed, they are the largest carrier at BUR, and they, like the gardeners and film crews and everyone else who makes noise in LA, have to respect the residents they impact.

You know, I don't mind if an airline has a technical problem and can't take off until late--no problem, let them take off. But to regularly schedule flights that disrupt the sleep of literally hundreds if not thousands of people is a problem.

What makes the noise problem even worse in the SF Valley -- and throughout LA -- is the helicopter traffic--which is already on top of the regular BUR and VNY departures. Unfortunately we live on a direct line between downtown/Hollywood and VNY, so we get constant helicopter traffic overhead going to refuel, etc. On top of that you have regular aerial patrols by the LAPD and the LAFD, and who knows whom else. God forbid there is a fatal accident or car chase -- theyn we get 5 or 6 helicopters hovering over the same urban location for hours.

So sure, I'm a NIMBY. I don't want corporate or sightseeing, or ambulance-chasing helicopters disrupting my life late at night. I don't want commercial takeoffs disrupting my life late at night.

A congressional hearing was held here a few months ago to discuss helicopter noise. A giant auditorium was overflowing with residents upset about the constant, very loud noise--literally hundreds of people complaining.

If you want to have an intelligent discussion about this issue -- this NOISE issue, fine, but there is a lot more to this then calling people wackos and NIMBYs.

Frankly I would like to see helicopters restricted to a much higher altitude. And I would like to see some changes made to the local airspace. Why does almost every single BUR departure (rwy15) make the exact same right turn? Why can't some of the flights make their turn a mile later (would not interfere with LAX), or a mile sooner? Why not use RWY 26 more often for departures? Sure it's convenient for the FAA, but it is very inconvenient for us residents. I so look forward to the days when the winds blows from the north......


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25416 posts, RR: 49
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 14 hours ago) and read 4176 times:

I am about 8 miles from BUR, but clearly can hear departures especially in the evenings.

With the topography of the airport being surrounded on 3 sides by hills, the aircraft noise echos far and wide across the valley and over the hills. Thank goodness AA dropped BUR and gone are the fire cracker MD-80s which I could hear even during the day many many miles away.

Frankly much of the issues at BUR and VNY are caused by the operators and their unwillingness to play well with the surrounding communities.
Both airports have existing noise ordinances on the books, but unfortunately the operators know they are weak on the punitive side and opt to ignore them.

This latest proposed legislation only seeks to shore up what is on the books already by putting teeth to the existing 10pm - 7am restrictions.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineN782NC From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 12 hours ago) and read 4121 times:

Quoting n471wn (Reply 2):

Seriously? Please explain to me how the "environmental wackos" have anything to do with a night curfew to begin with? Or for that matter strengthening something that's already in place?

Quoting bradmovie (Reply 3):
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):

As a Bay Area resident, forgive my ignorance... But if the optional curfew has been ignored for this long, why wasn't it made mandatory to begin with?



Stairway to Seven
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25416 posts, RR: 49
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 11 hours ago) and read 4059 times:

Quoting N782NC (Reply 5):
As a Bay Area resident, forgive my ignorance... But if the optional curfew has been ignored for this long, why wasn't it made mandatory to begin with?

A bit of a history lesson. The activity at these airports was much less going back to the 1970s. By 1980s things got busier so various agreements we hashed out that created operating rules, and things like promise to operate quieter planes, follow certain procedures etc. For the most part people complied.
Fast forward to today and the people and companies have long forgotten what was agreed to 30-40 years ago.

But what really created the bottle neck was that by the late 1980 and into early 1990s FAA and Congress passed various bits of legislation which by intent or not greatly reduced the ability of local airports and communities to manage airport activity.
Airports that already had hard caps like SNA and LBG here in SoCal were grandfathered in, but for those communities that that softer restrictions at the time like BUR and SMO could not move to impose additional restrictions either. Over the years via multiple court cases, various bits of legislation some minor tweaks were made, but an airport like BUR has essentially not been able to make its voluntary program any more mandatory than it was initially.

So all that has been left is continued outreach to aircraft owners and airlines to continue to try to make them aware of community concerns, and the airports operating guidelines.
As with everything in life YMMV and the communities are still left struggling to impose firmer rules 30 years later.

Probably the solace in all this for the community these days is a growing number of legislators including parties inside the FAA have finally understood that regulations such as the Federal Airport Noise and Capacity Act are too complex, and fail communities like BUR that do need a more realistic ability to manage airport activity on a local basis and to better reflect public wishes.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinebradmovie From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 11 hours ago) and read 4031 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 6):
A bit of a history lesson.

Thanks for that update LAX, I've lived here a long time and didn't know the history myself. I think the new pace of activity now has really been jump-started by the helicopter issues. The City of LA passed a non-binding resolution in the last few months to support federal legislation to curb noise. And at least 10 local cities, from West Hollywood to Manhattan Beach to the LA County Supervisors have all joined in.

The reality is that local government cannot accomplish these changes themselves. It is up to the FAA I'm not sure what they can accomplish in Sacramento either. But there need to be some changes made -- this city is incredibly noisy. I go to NYC regularly, and other big cities, and nowhere else have I experienced the constant noise and low-level flights that I do here.


User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1971 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 10 hours ago) and read 4013 times:

Quoting bradmovie (Reply 3):
When you are trying to sleep at 12 or 1AM and a very noisy corporate jet takes off right over your house -- heck, when you are simply trying to watch tv at 10 or 11pm and you can't hear it at all, that is a problem.

Was the airport there - and active - when you moved to that house?

Quoting bradmovie (Reply 3):
So sure, I'm a NIMBY.

At least you recognize it.


User currently offlineawacsooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1915 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 5 hours ago) and read 3888 times:

Quoting bradmovie (Reply 3):
Folks, these first two responses show a lot of ignorance.

As someone in the USAF who lives near bases that run 24/7 and has to listen to engines much louder than the ones that you are privileged to hear, I am hardly ignorant. I can venture to guess that about 80% of the homes around that airport were built AFTER that airport was built. You chose to live there...just as I chose to do what I do for a living. Suck it up!

If it's an echo issue, then put a limit on engine decibel noise (i.e. no JT8D aircraft). But this curfew that they just now want to enforce? No way.

[Edited 2013-05-25 00:49:34]

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25416 posts, RR: 49
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3571 times:

Quoting awacsooner (Reply 9):
But this curfew that they just now want to enforce? No way.

If you did not read the other post, the city for many decades has been trying hard to enforce the basic existing 10pm-7am curfew on the books, just its hands have been tied legally while operators come and go as they please overnight.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinewwtraveler99 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 293 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3519 times:

Part of this is directed at LAX because you are very informative.

But first all I can say to anyone who decides to move near an airport, just live with it. It was your decision to live near the airport. I lived very close to both BUR and LAX in the past. I remember to glass windows rattling when the 727 freighters took off at midnight.

Checking the schedule for WN at BUR they have ZERO flight scheduled wither before 7a or after 10p. This includes thier overnight aircraft.


For LAX---- With the current curfew that BUR uses, what does it say concerning the curfew? Also what would the "teeth" be that the new proposal contain? Also I was under the impression that all carriers abided by the current curfew put in place at BUR. Are there some who do not follow the guidelines? What is being violated with current rules?

Thank you LAX because I would like to know how the new proposal will change from the current operations there.

For the record I agree with those who said that WN will not pull flights based on this new proposal. They seem to be operating under the current conditions just fine.


WW


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25416 posts, RR: 49
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3484 times:

Quoting wwtraveler99 (Reply 11):
What is being violated with current rules?

The continued activity between the hours of 10pm to 7am.

Everything from late running aircraft, to the dozen nightly freighters to GA/biz jet traffic

Quoting wwtraveler99 (Reply 11):
Checking the schedule for WN at BUR they have ZERO flight scheduled wither before 7a or after 10p.

Yes but in reality plenty Southwest flights operate late -- arriving post the 10pm curfew.

For example WN599 OAK-BUR arrived past 10pm the following dates in the last two weeks.
May 24 - 1033pm
May 23 - 1015pm
May 22 - 1010pm
May 21 - 1007pm
May 20 - 1030pm
May 19 - 1023pm
and so on...........

or WN2513 SJC-BUR
May 24 - 1039pm
May 21 - 1025pm
May 16 - 1109pm
May 15 - 1110pm
etc...

or WN332 LAS-BUR
May 24 - 1020pm
May 23 - 1149pm
May 21 - 1010pm
May 20 - 1041pm

I think one gets the idea.

Quoting wwtraveler99 (Reply 11):
With the current curfew that BUR uses, what does it say concerning the curfew?

Like mentioned in the article, its a voluntary stipulation that carriers and other operators agree to as part of the airport operating agreement. Unfortunately besides gentle prodding the airport does not have the legal means to enforce this stronger.

Quoting wwtraveler99 (Reply 11):
Also what would the "teeth" be that the new proposal contain?

Could be something like LGB for example where monetary fines are imposed, or maybe like SNA where operators risk loss of operating privileges. Ultimately the airport will have to craft the details.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineDreamflight767 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3411 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I really wish people who complained about noise and turned noise issues into political regulations/laws would shut-up because the noise they create hurts my ears and wastes my tax dollars.

Before opening their mouth, they really need to understand how much "damage" they create for the airport, their community, and themselves.

I'm willing to bet other noise in their neighborhood is far more extensive and frequent then the few airplanes that fly over. I'll double my bet that those who complain also use and benefit from the airport next door directly and indirectly. I'll triple my bet by saying those who complain about airport noise don't give a damn about their neighborhood or others neighborhoods' when traveling so long as the schedule and ticket cost work for their convenience.


User currently offlinewwtraveler99 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 293 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3333 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 12):
Yes but in reality plenty Southwest flights operate late -- arriving post the 10pm curfew.

For example WN599 OAK-BUR arrived past 10pm the following dates in the last two weeks.

Thanks agian LAX. I was not aware that they were not suposed to operate at all after 10p. Thought it was that no carrier could schedule anything after 10p.



WW


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3275 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 8):

The entire valley is in the flight path of BUR and/or VNY. And generally commercial traffic is not the issue. Increased private traffic with old aircraft and helicopter traffic are the main issues. And the worst offenders are the police/sheriff and the news copters.

Anyway, its not a matter of "not buying a house near the airport" when the only way to avoid that is to clear the valley of houses. Then, with no residents, there is no reason for BUR in the first place.

BUR isn't LHR or FRA with international arrivals and complicated connections. It's an O&D airport with a nearby international gateway. If the local residents want to limit their own choices of flight times they should be allowed to. And if they want to try to control the flight paths of helicopters it should be considered.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 557 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3239 times:

First off, BUR is not closed to aircraft from 10PM-7AM, it's closed to Stage two Jets and props, flight training and run-ups at that time.

Secondly, Unless you have been living in the house since 1942, you have NO right to complain about noise. You should have stayed in the house a few nights before you bought it to determine the livability. Nothing ticks me off more than people who buy houses right by airports and then complain about the noise.

I hope the FAA determines that the airport will be be in breach of their Grant Agreement and cuts off all funding to the airports and force the airport and city to immediately repay all funding received by the airport. Then maybe people will learn as it will become next to impossible to fly out of the airport as the carriers leave and ticket prices raise for the remaining carriers as the airport introduces new fees to cover all the federal money they just lost. But then again, I'm sure that's exactly what some people just want to want to happen.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10432 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3229 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):

Today both airports have partial and voluntary curfews which are largely ignored by the airline and GA community.

Short story to interject, here.


Right after the DL/WA merger in '87, I was working the Ramp Coordinator's office in SLC. Most of the people in there were ex-WA, including all of the Ramp Coordinators. One evening, we had the last BUR flight of the day, a 737-300, go mechanical and it didn't look like it could be fixed. The coordinator realized that there was a spare 737-200 sitting at a gate and decided to use that to replace the other one, even knowing that it would be breaking the noise curfew for BUR when it arrived. With a wink and a nod, we loaded it up and let it go and the next day, the coordinator had a discussion with flight control in ATL (OCC today) about it, claiming that he didn't realize it was a -200.  



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinethreeifbyair From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 677 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3196 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 12):
Everything from late running aircraft, to the dozen nightly freighters to GA/biz jet traffic

Why does BUR have so many freight operations in the first place? Is there any reason (besides LA's awful traffic) as to why the freighters cannot use LAX or leave earlier in the evening?

I spent 15 years of my school career under the flight path to the 16s at SEA and grew up living under the base leg of a lot of SEA approaches. Fun for me  but surprisingly loud when you are outside and trying to talk to someone.


User currently offlinechrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 2116 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3039 times:

Quoting bradmovie (Reply 3):
So sure, I'm a NIMBY. I don't want corporate or sightseeing, or ambulance-chasing helicopters disrupting my life late at night. I don't want commercial takeoffs disrupting my life late at night.

Since nobody's asked: why did you chose to live five miles from one of the busiest GA airports in the US and a fairly large regional airport?

Quoting threeifbyair (Reply 18):
Why does BUR have so many freight operations in the first place? Is there any reason (besides LA's awful traffic) as to why the freighters cannot use LAX or leave earlier in the evening?

I believe there are only two or three freight jets leaving BUR a day, unless you're counting the tiny freighters that move stuff up and down the coast.


User currently offlinebradmovie From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

The hostility of some responses is quite impressive, along with with those asking me to justify my life decisions to them.

Quoting n471wn (Reply 2):

another example of environmental whacko's who have ruined our state......
Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 8):
Was the airport there - and active - when you moved to that house?
Quoting awacsooner (Reply 9):
You chose to live there...just as I chose to do what I do for a living. Suck it up!
Quoting Dreamflight767 (Reply 13):
those who complain about airport noise don't give a damn about their neighborhood or others neighborhoods'

As I said before, the problem is mostly helicopters and corporate jets that bust the curfew.

Quoting chrisair (Reply 19):
Since nobody's asked: why did you chose to live five miles from one of the busiest GA airports in the US and a fairly large regional airport?

Chrisair, while your question is not hostile, it implies that you believe I must be pretty stupid. Why I chose to live here? To be close to my work, to be in a nice neighborhood, to be close to my family, to be near good schools, it was what we could afford, etc. etc. All the usual reasons. But then again, that's pretty much why anyone decides where to move. Being 5 miles from an airport did not come up at all--especially because we are not on the extended centerlines of any runways. There are over 2 million people who live in this valley -- I guess that makes all of us pretty stupid, too.

Two million people -- do we just put up with whatever corporate America wants to do with their planes and helicopters? No curfews, no noise restrictions, no mininum altitudes? I clearly can't reason with those of you who just see red.

FYI, there are only 3 large jet freighters that depart BUR every day around 730pm--1xUPS and 2xFEDEX a300's I believe. The other freight ops are much smaller aircraft.


User currently offlinechrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 2116 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2923 times:

Quoting bradmovie (Reply 20):
Chrisair, while your question is not hostile, it implies that you believe I must be pretty stupid.

Not at all, and don't put words in my mouth.

Quoting bradmovie (Reply 20):
Being 5 miles from an airport did not come up at all--especially because we are not on the extended centerlines of any runways.

Did you not do due diligence when you bought your house?

For example, for the past few years I've been looking at moving from Tucson, to the Phoenix suburb of Ahwatukee. For many of the same reasons you cite, Ahwatukee is an appealing choice for me.

One problem: there's going to be a freeway put through town somewhere. Nothing has been decided, but there will be a freeway going through Ahwatukee within the next 10 years. As much as I'd love to buy a place and move there now, I can't fathom spending the money only to find out I'll be within a few miles of a major construction zone for 5-10 years. I also can't understand why people have bought homes near or in the proposed construction zones then start complaining. It just boggles my mind. This project has been on the books since the mid 1980s!

One of the first things that came up when I purchased my house in Tucson is I'm directly under the flightpath for the airport. I'm outside the airport "noise zone," so I can't get new windows (bummer), but I still deal with the noise. No big deal from the commercial planes, but the military F16s that buzz the house with afterburners roaring make it impossible to hold a conversation. I decided it wasn't a big deal when I bought my place in 2004.

I understand things change and when you purchased it might have been completely different. But I still have a hard time having sympathy for anyone who complains about aircraft noise. I'm not saying the curfew shouldn't be enforced or "given teeth."

I'll be sure to wave next time I'm arriving or departing BUR at 7a, giving you your morning 737 wakeup call.  

[Edited 2013-05-29 18:29:04]

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25416 posts, RR: 49
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2887 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 15):
The entire valley is in the flight path of BUR and/or VNY.

   the valley topography unfortunately carries the booming noise from aircraft very very far.

Quoting chrisair (Reply 19):
I believe there are only two or three freight jets leaving BUR a day, unless you're counting the tiny freighters that move stuff up and down the coast.

Don't forget you also have the 417am UPS A300 arrival, plus the two Fedex A300s arriving at 445am and 556am in addition to the dozen props and GA flights overnight as well.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1971 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2885 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 15):
The entire valley is in the flight path of BUR and/or VNY.

OK. I think if you're talking about Chatsworth and Woodland Hills you may be stretching. Why not include Simi, Oak Park and Agoura. I've lived in the area. I've flown into BUR many many times. I'm familiar with the situation.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 15):
If the local residents want to limit their own choices of flight times they should be allowed to.

I'm not sure I agree with this. BUR isn't really just a "local" airport. Sure, it's not LAX, but it's not like it's a small municipal airport either.

Fact is, if you want quiet and you live anywhere near BUR, you simply need to move. Not because of the airport. Because somewhere along the way you made a horrible mistake and moved to a very populous busy area where quiet simply is not in the cards.

I deal with logging trucks grinding up a 10% grade at 5am. People there deal with airplanes at 10:15pm. You want real quiet, move to Alaska.


User currently offlineawacsooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1915 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2811 times:

So those of us who work in the military who live near bases that have 24/7 ops...should we then start asking the airfield management to institute curfews because it's annoying?

25 flightsimer : It 's called compromising, you have to give and take. You want the perfect house in a place where that was not physically practicable and then you wa
26 bradmovie : Wow, I try to be civil and explain patiently, but people just want to criticize me for having the audacity and ignorance to leave near an airport. Why
27 aaron747 : Some people are reading your posts. LAX's comments about how things have changed over the years fell on deaf ears too. VNY and BUR had a shadow of th
28 Post contains images mayor : Oh, I don't know......I suppose if the noise bothers you, maybe it should be a consideration. We've had this argument on here, before and for the lif
29 fxra : LA Basin traffic makes it impractical. With out flights into and out of BUR and SNA customers would be required to make due with earlier cut offs for
30 chrisair : I was asking a simple question. If you heard someone living at Waterview and Pershing Drive in LA complaining about noise from LAX, you'd ask the sam
31 StudeDave : Which is what my Family must have done 50 years ago when they moved into a house at the other (noisier) end- like, say 85th street between Kentwood a
32 mayor : Mainly because you admitted that you were a NIMBY. Bad mistake, I'm afraid.
33 chrisair : My ex-girlfriend's grandmother lives near 78th and Alverstone. They lived in Surfridge then moved over that way in the 60s (IIRC). I always loved sta
34 JBAirwaysFan : I'm sorry, but I live near JFK and we just deal with it. If you live in Southwestern Nassau County in New York you're going to have airplanes flying o
35 LAXintl : What is wrong with folks trying to change (improve) their quality of life or neighborhood ? I have been involved in pushing for projects in my neighbo
36 B737-112 : I live right near BUR & I'd like to see more operations, louder jets & no curfew. Signed, an aviation fan... Ryan
37 Post contains images cmf : Well, since you have proposed a method you consider fair you must be happy if that method is applied from the other point of view. That is, unless yo
38 Post contains images aaron747 : Couldn't have said it better. Which is a fair point. And I made the equally fair point that there are far more decisions to be made than that when ch
39 mayor : I would propose that if an airport is right next door to where you plan to buy, THAT should be the first consideration if you don't want to hear the
40 bradmovie : I was simply saying that I do not want EXCESSIVE noise near my house--and my backyard. I am not some nut who wants to shut down every airport within 2
41 cmf : His use of NIMBY was full of sarcasm in regards to how quick people are labeled that just because they do not prioritize aviation above everything el
42 bradmovie : Haha, you are correct. Thanks cmf, and thanks also to LAXintl. Extreme positions on most anything are, well, extreme. Working together, forging reaso
43 93Sierra : I just don't understand people. The airport was there before you, and you knew that. Why punish the airport/operators/ and other people who wish to us
44 cmf : There were people there long before airlines. Still think we should use - who was there first?
45 93Sierra : Burbank started commerical operations with United in 1930 so uneless your 83 you don't have a dog in the fight.
46 cmf : Not the same United and not the same flights. If you want to count changes on the residential side then you need to count changes on the aviation sid
47 93Sierra : Doesn't matter, fact is that commerical operations with loud pistons were being flown there since 1930. Van nuys has had aircraft operations ( general
48 LAXintl : So its OK for airports to operate or grow without any controls or consideration of the community? This certainly would not be the case for power plant
49 cmf : More of the same flawed argument. It isn't the same organizations flying there today and thus the was there first argument does not hold water. Your
50 93Sierra : Thanks for pointing out the issues with my argument, I didn't think think of those points
51 RDH3E : You're going to give up that easy? Numbers 1/2 are completely irrelevant as the original people are not the ones complaining about the noise, and the
52 cmf : Your objection is irrelevant as there has been continuous residential use since before the airport. Since you want to restart the timer when resident
53 RDH3E : And complaining to increase as well. Also, you keep referring to the operators changing, but that is irrelevant since the wider issue we're discussin
54 cmf : The airport is not asked to move. It is asked to not schedule noisy operations during nights. Just as residents can't make noise during nights, That
55 scbriml : BUR is different, it already has a curfew. The airport already has a curfew that is not enforced. Hopefully it will be enforced. The issue is with th
56 AADC10 : It of course is the same United but BUR is now UAX only. United actually built the airport in the days of privately owned airports. A few miles away
57 DiamondFlyer : Then send them to San Bernardino. Put in some decent mass transit out there and the place would do well. But instead, you've got an unused multimilli
58 cmf : How do you figure? Different owners. Different management. Different legal corporations ( bankruptcy etc.) I'm sure some of the affected residences h
59 mayor : I'm afraid any explanation in that direction will fall on "deaf" ears, pardon the pun. The prince of semantics. Of course it isn't the same managemen
60 Post contains links and images Beardown91737 : In Southern California, installing a multibillion dollar mass transit system that goes straight past ONT will not suddenly stimulate usage of San Ber
61 ikramerica : People can argue BUR all day but the VNY argument is different. VNY has greatly expanded. The whole private aviation business has. There are dozens of
62 cmf : I ask you to explain what you mean and you call it deaf ears. When you can't even explain then I can only take it you do not have a valid point. Not
63 mayor : Well, the airport didn't just bulldoze those residences, did they? Was the land not purchased by the airport from someone? Once that happens, it beco
64 cmf : The airport didn't buy the residential lots where the noise is a problem, did they? They did not buy the land where they make noise, did they? Your l
65 Post contains links Beardown91737 : The airport timer starts when the airport was built because it is an airport that everyone can see, even if your Realtor (R) tells you it isn't that b
66 cmf : Then the residential timer starts with the first residential building. As anyone building an airport can see there are residential buildings there. T
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...
European Push For Greener Planes posted Tue Feb 5 2008 14:45:22 by Mham001
Anyone Know The Load Factor For B6 (BUR-SLC)? posted Mon Jan 14 2008 22:44:39 by B737-112
Hutchinson's Push For Compromise On The WA posted Thu Mar 2 2006 23:55:09 by Cjpark
Push For Commercial Use Of Travis AFB In Bay Area? posted Mon Nov 29 2004 05:29:49 by Johnboy
NYT: Diplomats Help Push Deals For A And B posted Sun Jan 2 2011 13:21:27 by FriendlySkies
Cleared For Push And Start: Irish 48/07 posted Mon Nov 5 2007 20:06:45 by Kaitak
166 Bizjets At BUR For Rose Bowl posted Wed Jan 11 2006 01:21:59 by Atcman
New System For Auto Push Back - Economical? posted Sun Sep 18 2005 19:27:37 by Glidepath73
Lobbiest Push AA For MIA-BDA posted Fri Aug 22 2003 18:26:44 by MAH4546
Aloha Starting BUR For $199RT! posted Wed Apr 10 2002 23:17:47 by B737-112