Right now one of the preferred configurations is to land on 32 (for noise abatement) and depart 28L from P. There is no conflict at all as both streams do not intersect each other. Arrivals on 32 and departures on 28L from P can happen independent and simultaneously. There is also no conflict with aircraft taxiing in with those taxiing out as the taxiway infrastructure allows for both to happen at the same time.
-Taxiing conflict. An aircraft just landed on 32 will taxi to the terminal westbound on E (the taxiway immediately north and parallel to the former 28C). An aircraft taxiing for departure on the former 28C will taxi eastbound on E. Aircraft will now need to wait on each other to pass, negating any fuel savings that 28C has over 28L by being closer to the terminal.
-Intersecting runways. An aircraft departing on the former 28C will need to cross 32 on taxi out. It will also need to cross 32 again on takeoff roll. That's two runway crossings for one operation. Two potential areas for a runway incursion plus reduced capacity. The FAA should shut this plan down based on that alone.
-The report mentioned major work/relocation needed on E to allow the former 28C to be used for Group V aircraft (B777/B744) without impacting the availability of E by other aircraft.
- The current 28L and parallel taxiway F are the only Group VI (B748/A380) capable runway/taxiway pair at the airport. If a Group VI aircraft needs to use 28R or 28C, the accompanying parallel taxiway can not be used by any other aircraft.
1) what data do you have to support your statement about landing 32 and departing 28L @ P as being the preferred runways for use? Because I can tell you Since last April, I have landed on 32 twice, both times only because 28L was closed. Even when 32 has been the advertised runway for arrivals, my captain or myself have requested and received 28L For arrival. I have taken off on 28L @P maybe three times in that same period and that was during the fall when 28R was being shut down for MX. That was the ONLY reason why I have ever used 28L for departing. And to add, I have taken off From 28C full length once and their was no operational difficulty in doing so.
As I said before in the other thread, no matter which flow is being used, 98% of the time, the left runway is arrivals and the right side is departures. On an easterly flow that means 10C is being utilized for departures and 10L for arrivals. I have never taken off on 10R, but I have witnessed aircraft doing so maybe a handful of times. On a westerly flow, 28L arrivals and 28R departures...
The majority of aircraft using 32 to land is either Corporate aircraft going to Atlantic or the mid field or FedEx/UPS because it offers the quickest taxi in times to cargo. 32 offers the longest taxi time for any aircraft going to the terminal. The only airlines it somewhat makes sense for is for aircraft going to the north sides of A/D terminals, but they aren't using Echo to taxi in, they exit right and use November/Bravo to taxi in.
2) as I said above, most of the airline arrivals I have witnessed from 32 taxi around on the north side of the airfield, not on Taxiway Echo. Even in the 170/175, making taxiway Echo requires heavy braking. Both times I have landed on 32, I made Echo, but it required us to come to a nearly complete stop before making the turn. There is not a huge fuel differences between the two runways either. We taxi out single engine, we taxi in single engine.
Airports run with standardized flows. I don't know why you don't think PIT ATC could not manage an efficient flow of aircraft on the field once the changes are made.
3) as I said in #1, 32 is not the primary landing runway nor is 28L or future 28L the primary departing runway. There would be no reduction of capacity on a normal day. The only time it might occur would be when 28R is shut down arrivals are able to take 32. Even then, Pit is not running a huge amount of traffic that ATC would not be able to handle all of this. Even with two runways, they have the operational capacity to handle all of the flight per the study.
4/5) we get a group 5 aircraft how often? it's a rare event already. I fully believe our ATC is capable of handling an oddball group v aircraft every once in a while on the new layout.
Are your points valid arguments? Absolutely, but I don't think they will outweigh the cost benefit of shutting down 28L.