KarlB737
Topic Author
Posts: 2635
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 9:51 pm

FAA-Shorter Runway For T.F. Green In RI Won't Fly

Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:50 am

Courtesy: The Providence Journal

FAA - Shorter Runway For T.F. Green In RI Won't Fly

http://www.airportbusiness.com/artic.../article.jsp?siteSection=4&id=7371
 
iowaman
Posts: 3874
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 2:29 am

RE: FAA-Shorter Runway For T.F. Green In RI Won't Fly

Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:23 am

Why they are basing this around the 763 I have no idea. I don't know of any airline that would even consider running a 763 PVD-West Coast. 763's are becoming less and less frequent domestically anyways. At 8,100ft a WN 73G could easily make it cross-country, they already do to LAS and PHX.
 
RL757PVD
Posts: 2539
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 1999 2:47 am

RE: FAA-Shorter Runway For T.F. Green In RI Won't Fly

Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:42 am

Quoting Iowaman (Reply 1):
Why they are basing this around the 763 I have no idea. I don't know of any airline that would even consider running a 763 PVD-West Coast.



Well by the time the runway is built it is a possibility. Also, nothing says the 763 will be a PASSENGER plane! In addition, these studies are based off of the year 2020 forecast.

All airport plans/projects are based off an FAA approved forecast. The FAA approved the forecast/ masterplan stating that there would be over 500 763 transcons from PVD on an annual basis (little more than 1 daily), therefore it is a legitimate analysis. The FAA uses the most demanding operation conducting 500 annual itinerant operations as their "design aircraft", and a transocn 763 from PVD is a realistic design aircraft, whether its a UA 763 or a UPS 763, it still counts!

Now granted it could be different that a 763, long range planning is a difficult task, but a 763 is a good average airplane to use.
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
 
PVD757
Posts: 3030
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:23 pm

RE: FAA-Shorter Runway For T.F. Green In RI Won't Fly

Tue Aug 01, 2006 4:17 am

RL sums it up pretty well - the FAA master planning process doesn't discount the liklihood of what makes sense to us today - but rather they are planning for the 'worst case' scenario. If they undercut the length and economics change in 10 years, then they'll have to start all over again - that would cost millions compared to adding 500-1000 feet to an already 'planned' runway project.

When you build a bridge - you design it for the largest loads that will carry - the runway planning is similar...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 737max8, airboeingbus, Anomalix, AsiaTravel, atcsundevil, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Dutchy, fallap, hjreinfeld, MrBretz, OA940, parapente, rlwynn, sassiciai, shez, spacecookie, stlgph, TC957, YIMBY and 217 guests