Matt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (15 years 1 month 12 hours ago) and read 667 times:
Burbank has been in desparate need of a new terminal for YEARS. But due to the short sighted thinking of encroachment in and near the airport, in essence caging it in, and not leaving any room for growth, and the inevitable protests that will arise, I will be surprised if a new terminal gets built before 2010...if it ever gets built at all.
Tom in NO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7194 posts, RR: 32
Reply 2, posted (15 years 1 month 12 hours ago) and read 662 times:
During the mid-80's, I was a representative of BUR's Part 150 noise committee. During that time, and ever since, one of the goals there was the design, development, approval, and construction of a replacement terminal. The problems, as I remember, were twofold: 1) local residential opposition, and 2) inability to effect land purchase for the project.
It is unfathomable to me why the FAA goes on letting BUR operate in this environment, when the terminal is within 500' of the main runway, and FAA Advisory Circular design minimums are 750'. BUR needs to get the new terminal done. It should have been done years ago.
But, then, that's what happens when you let the general uneducated population dictate how you run your airport. I know a number of people at BUR, and they're all good people. But that is one screwed up airport.
YES, I'm in total favor of the new terminal.
Tom in NO
"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina