Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA: BUR Does Not Need To Build New Terminal  
User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5790 posts, RR: 15
Posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2537 times:

The FAA has sent the Burbank Airport a letter saying it will not require a new terminal to be built at BUR. The FAA had been a supporter of attempts to build a new terminal for safety reasons since the current building is only 300 feet from active runways.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-burair20dec20,0,5652487.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dpe%2Dcalifornia


"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4488 posts, RR: 33
Reply 1, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2514 times:

What a mess. People in Burbank continue to shoot themselves in the foot. Yeah, a convenient airport that saves millions of people hours of driving time to LAX (and saves the LA area some air pollution) is just such a horrible thing. I'd like to know when most people living in Burbank today moved there. It was probably long after BUR was built.

Folks in the LA area seem utterly determined to keep their air transportation system gridlocked--be it BUR, LAX, LGB, or SNA. They shouldn't complain when they spend more time in traffic than in the air. At least ONT was able to get its new terminals built.

Jim


User currently offlineTom in NO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7194 posts, RR: 33
Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2503 times:

I miss a lot of things about SoCal, since I moved to MSY in 1987, my family being the obvious primary one.

Two things I don't miss: the NIMBY's (although we have a few here), and the bureaucrats. Those two are main reasons way things don't get accomplished in SoCal. I've said this in this forum many times: I participated on BUR's Part 150 Technical Advisory Committee for two years before I moved here, which involved studying the new terminal. The biggest headache were the NIMBY's.

Apparently, the FAA doesn't believe a new terminal will ever happen (which I happen to agree with), which is why they want their grant monies back. Of course, since BUR has already bought up some property, the FAA will never get all of it back.

Also, yes, ONT did get their new terminal completed, but it was over 10+ years late.

Finally, if you want to study the primary example of the NIMBY's, environmentalists, and politicians fighting each other over a project, look no further than the I-210 (Foothill Frewway) extension thru Laverne, Claremont, Upland, Cucamonga, etc. That thing was due back in the 70's, and I believe it opens this month.

Tom in NO (at MSY)



"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
User currently offlineGD727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 925 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2500 times:

BUR is probably needs a new terminal more than any other west coast airport. The current terminal is so damn old, it is ridiculous! Once again, those damn NIMBYs ruin another airport's opportunity!

-GD727



Mmmm forbidden donut.
User currently offlineJabpilot From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 423 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2483 times:

I am a 34 year BUR resident and am absolutely disgusted by the residents of this city. I of course wanted a new terminal built on the former Lockheed property but am one of the very few who think the airport is a good thing! Of course alot of Burbank residents USE the airport but don't want to see an improvement!? Some of my neighbors have also lived here since the DC9 and 727 dominated the airport, along with numerous daily flights of Lockheed aircraft out of BUR but complain about the today's Stage 3 departures. The NIMBY's in this area have won. The Lockheed B-6 property is going to be sold and it appears we are stuck with a 60+ year old terminal. On a positive note...it is definately one of the most nostalgic airport terminals still in use.

Jeff

User currently offlineKwbl From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2473 times:

Well, I agree that BUR needs a new terminal but I do like the current one from a nostalgia standpoint! Good memories....

User currently offlineFlyingbronco05 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3840 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2472 times:



looks like an old midway (kinda). I Think a new terminal could bring new passengers through. I sure dont want to go to a dirty old airport.



Never Trust Your Fuel Gauge
User currently offlineJabpilot From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 423 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2472 times:

Flyingbronco05: I think that's what Burbank residents are worried about is more demand for BUR and an increase in flights.

Jeff

User currently offlineTom in NO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7194 posts, RR: 33
Reply 8, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2445 times:

An airport definitely in need of a new terminal, but you really can't argue with a classy building and historical ambience:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ben Wang
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Aaron Hall



Tom in NO (at MSY)




"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5790 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2439 times:

Tom,

It's so bad in Southern California these days that Bakersfield (90 miles north of Burbank) is now being broached as one answer to the airport mess. BFL is nearing a start on a new terminal and concourse on the south side of the runways, which would provide easier access to 99. With LA's northern sprawl crossing the Grapevine toward Bakersfield and now this, it should increase that talk.

Palmdale is getting more complicated as a future option since the Air Force is discussing shutting down the Plant 42 runways. Unless LA can retain control of the runways, Palmdale would be useless.
"Los Angeles eyes Air Force Plant 42 airfield takeover"
http://archives.californiaaviation.org/airport/msg23768.html



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2431 times:

Plant 42 will never become a serious alternate, IMO. They've been talking about using the Antelope Valley as an alternate for decades -- heck, at one time they were talking about building an entire airport from scratch in Lancaster, a few miles north of Plant 42.

And you might just be better off still doing so, if you were going to think you could drag folks out 60+ miles to an airport!

Why?

1) there's no real infrastructure at PMD right now. Okay, you've got two runways, but they aren't parallel. So you'd have one useful runway and have to build the rest.

2) with the variance in the winds you'd need to strongly building full sets of parallel runways on two different angles.

3) Palmdale is getting more built up by the day; give it 10 years and you'll be hitting the same issues again (not that Lancaster would be much better)

And an Antelope Valley site will have more conflicting departure issues, since you cannot bring traffic in from the east on the north side of the airport due to R-2501 (Edwards AFB).

The true answer is, we have to live with the fact that society as a whole is getting larger and more problematic. Stage IV will hopefully help with some of the NIMBYism; I think it's time to start pushing it.

Steve


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...
LGW -why Not A Tunnel To Pier 2, North Terminal posted Tue Oct 24 2006 15:22:31 by TimRees
JNB To Get New Terminal posted Wed May 24 2006 13:15:10 by MetalInyoni
$17 Billion To Build New Airport At San Diego posted Wed Apr 19 2006 19:43:38 by KarlB737
What Does It Cost To Certify A New Aircraft? posted Sun Mar 19 2006 02:38:41 by Art
How Come SK Does Not Return To TLV? posted Fri Dec 23 2005 12:52:45 by El Al 001
Fort Myers (RSW) To Delay New Terminal Opening posted Mon Jul 11 2005 21:48:15 by KarlB737
Does LHR Need To Lift Its Game? posted Thu Jun 30 2005 12:01:42 by Aerokiwi
American Not Eager To Buy New Boeing Jet..yet posted Wed Jun 8 2005 23:01:59 by NYC777
Does BOM Need To Expand/Move? posted Wed Apr 20 2005 21:06:35 by LH477
Boeing To Build New Super Jet To Challenge A380 posted Sun Apr 10 2005 04:47:47 by Btblue