travelin man
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Thu Aug 24, 2000 3:26 am

I just got back from HNL yesterday (see trip report in "trip reports" section). A lot of people on my flight were either changing planes in LAX to catch a flight to San Diego, or were driving down to San Diego from LAX. It seems like there is huge demand for non-stop SAN-HNL flights. It is a matter of time before they are begun. My question: Who will be the first airline to offer it, and what type of plane should be used???
 
Ilyushin96M
Posts: 2506
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 1999 3:15 am

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Thu Aug 24, 2000 3:28 am

There USED to be SAN-HNL flights, I am pretty sure. My family took a trip to Hawaii back in the early '70s aboard a DC-8 from SAN to HNL.

Anyone know if there are still flights?
 
Trvlr
Posts: 4251
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2000 9:58 am

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Thu Aug 24, 2000 3:59 am

The flight you took was probably on Delta, which then switched to a L-1011 for the SAN-HNL flight. The route was ended about 4 or 5 years ago, probably so DL could concentrate on LAX and SFO. If any airline decides to offer SAN-HNL service again, then it will probably be Aloha or Delta again, with either a 737-800 or 757/767.

Aaron G.
 
dia77
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2000 3:49 am

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Thu Aug 24, 2000 6:24 am

I also wonder why there is no nonstop DEN-HNL flight. Ever since CO ended this route in 94, DEN hasn't had a nonstop flight to HNL.
 
Guest

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Thu Aug 24, 2000 6:54 am

There will be a new SAN-HNL flight starting up very soon. Heard of TransPacific Airlines? One of their first routes is SAN-HNL, using a DC-10. I'd suggest you fly this. Another reson is that SAN is too small an airport for San Diego. There are NO slots available at the moment, TransPacific was lucky to get the last slots.
Also, SAN is a very expensive airport to fly into, due to space limitations. Landing costs are much higher than that in LAX, which is why DL switched their flight to LAX in the first place. Now if SAN were to build a new airport, you'll see more growth in that area than ever before, so many new flights and carriers moving in, it could top LAX's growth rate in terms of air travel.
Only time will tell. So far, no new airports. The residents will not have it, they need to preserve their precious "peace and quiet". Blah!!!!!!
Build the damn airport a block away from my house! I'd love it! In fact, let's send in some old 707s and shake the whole neighborhood up! Take that you quiet-loving, no love for aviation, selfish fools!!!
Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!! 

Ahhhhhh, I feel better now.  

Personally, fellow aviation fans, would you mind living under the approach to a major airport, near the threshold? I'd love it!!

Another thing stunting the growth of aviation in SAN is environental concerns. Well, I love nature and I hate to see it spoiled, but for God's sake. The precious cars you people like to drive put out more toxins each year than the airplanes, why do you think L.A. has so much smog? It ain't the airplanes!!!!!

Why don't you all get rid of your cars and see how you like it. Don't like it, do ya. OK, neither do us aviation fans. GET OFF!!!!!!!  

I feel even better now!!!!! 

BTW, I wasn't venting at anybody on this forum, I'm mad at the people who protest the expansion of air travel, that's all. In fact, recently UPS (?) wanted to turn Brown Field into a cargo hub for SAN, to ease congestion, and people had a total fit!! God, it ain't that big a deal.
No offense, San Diegans!!! 

Well, any thoughts?

TropicalSkies-
Fly to new horizons
 
Trvlr
Posts: 4251
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2000 9:58 am

RE: TropicalSkies

Thu Aug 24, 2000 8:46 am

I agree with you. The problem just boils down to the fact that most people don't have the knowledge to think that far ahead into the future. They just say: "Don't worry, it is just too much trouble for us now. Los Angeles will take care of it!!!". If you have been to LAX lately, however, you will see that will probably not happen. This is turning into a problem that is affecting all of Southern California. If the current trend continues, people are going to wake up in 20 years and find that the population of the area they live in has increased by a million. Then they will be kicking themselves for not doing anything around the turn of the century, just like many people are kicking themselves now for not doing anything a few years ago.   

Aaron G.
 
johnboy
Posts: 2554
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 9:09 pm

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Thu Aug 24, 2000 9:45 am

I agree that it will probably be Aloha Airlines that starts flights from SAN, to both HNL and OGG. I haven't heard of load factors on OAK flights to both cities, but I can't imagine people not taking advantage of flying out of OAK instead of SFO. Rumor has it that SNA will also get flights to both HNL and OGG. Hard to believe that no airlines have flights from either city, leisure traveler vs. business traveler be damned!
 
FLY777UAL
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

Tropical Skies

Thu Aug 24, 2000 10:13 am

Really quickly--

you said, "why do you think L.A. has so much smog?", well it sure as hell ain't just from the "precious cars" (you must still be riding your bike). Have you heard of fires, or factories?! 'cause LA has both of those...

Furthermore, the next time that you're in LA, take a good look at what surrounds you--MOUNTAINS. Yep--LA's built right at the bottom of a BASIN, which basically acts as a screen which keeps EVERYTHING in. LA was "smoggy" back when the Indians lived there--their fires always kept the basin choked up.

(Here's another way for you to look at it: A bowl of water keeps the water in, and none of it can escape. But if you poured that same amount of water on a tabletop, it would dribble off until there was barely any left.)

Another good example of a state which has quite a bit of smog is the state of Washington. Drive over to Seattle some clear day, and take a look around. Similar to what LA has, although much more spread out (Olympic Mtns. and Cascades are further apart than the Coast and the San Bernadinos).

Just a little pet peeve of mine (the misinformed, that is).

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L

 
Guest

Trvlr

Thu Aug 24, 2000 10:43 am

I couldn't agree more!!! What I feel is that the only place that is open enough for SAN to build a new airport is to the north, between the mountains. You know where the Wild Animal Park is, right? Come back south from there and there's a nice little valley there, with orange trees all over and an Ostrich farm in the middle. Beautiful area! But, this might be a likely area for SAN to build a new airport. Eventually, city officials are going to have to go against the public's wishes and bulldoze some wilderness.
Wait, I take that back. There's too much politics involved in a situation like this. So, will a new airport be built? NOOOOOOO!!! Why? Because the darn city officials will want to get re-elected, right? Don't want to piss anybody off, right? So, if a new airport has to potential to piss somebody off, it'll never get built!
So, I geuss we need to quit wishing for a new airport, and start hoping an old one gets restored, or expanded. One potential airport would be Gillespie Field, north of El Cajon. I haven't seen this area in real life, so I'm not sure on how open the land is around Gillespie, but according to my map, there's only a few roads around it, which says to me that it's sparse residential. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Figures for Gillespie-
Controlled,
Runways- asphalt-
9L/27R- 5,341 ft, ILS ISEE rwy 27R
17/35- 4,147 ft
9R/27L- 2,737 ft

Gillespie at current could support an aircraft no larger than a 767-200. If expanded by just 3,000 ft, Gillespie could support a Boeing 747-400!

Another alternative would be Montgomery Field. I passed by this field on my trip to San Diego, and believe me, I can't imagine a 747 there, but if the mint runway, 10L/28R is expanded by 4,000 ft, it could support a 747. But the tarmac also has to be expanded. Plus, residential areas surround Montgomery, so chances of this airport being expanded are nill.

Brown Field is an excellent contender. The main runway, 8L/26R, is 7,999 ft long. The only problem is that a large hill is in the way of the takeoff path to the East, so any departures would have to take off to the west, and arrivals would have to land heading east.
Protests have already kept Brown from expanding, so again opportunity is slim for Brown. Currently it can support a 747-sized aircraft.

That pretty much does it for San Deigo's alternates. Some airports to the north include Oceanside and Carlsbad Municipal airports, but these airports are barely large enough to hold a King Air, so it's not likely their runways will be expanded by 5,000 ft each.  

Further north in Santa Ana, we have El Toro. Now THIS has potential. It's just outside Santa Ana, with room to grow. Two runways are 10,000 ft long, two are 8,000 ft long, and one is 3,900 ft long. this airport could hold an A3XX-sized aircraft!!   
I hope El Toro doesn't become a housing developemnt, it is southern California's best hope for a new international airport!

Nest, there's John Wayne, already at full cpacaity, with a main runway length of 5,700 ft. This airport won't grow, it's surrounded by housing.

An area close to Los Angeles that I like is Long Beach, Daughtery Field. One runway is 10,000 feet long, one is 6,192 ft, one is 5,420 ft, another is 4,470 ft, and finally one is 4,267 ft. All runways are at maximum length, there's no room for growth. Still, when LAX is full, Long Beach will be most likely to expand in terms of air service.

Van Nuys airport to the north is further away than LAX, but has good potential. Runways are 8,001 ft and 4,000 ft, so thsi airport could support a 747. Not to mention there's enough ramp space too. 

Burbank is BLAH! Run-down, very little ramp space. The only good feaure is that runways are 6,886 ft and 6,032 ft long, well enough for a 767-400.

Finally, Ontario Int'l is a good spot. runways are 12,200ft and 10,200 ft long.   there's AMPLE ramp space, and so much airport-owned land around the terminals, the airport could be expanded to LAX size!! The only problem is that it's 43 miles from downtown L.A., and nobody wants to drive 43 miles to catch a flight if they live two miles from LAX.

For me, the most potential for Los Angeles area lies in Long Beach and El Toro airports.
For San Diego, Gillespie Field is the best bet, unless Brown's luck changes.

Any thoughts?



 
Guest

RE: Trvlr

Thu Aug 24, 2000 10:53 am

Build a floating airport near Coronado Cays and watch as people anchor houseboats next to it, then complain about the noise.
 
Guest

Fly 777 UAL

Thu Aug 24, 2000 10:53 am

Actually, FLY, I have my own car. A 1991 Ford Escort, and I love it very much. What I meant by "precious cars" is that people don't seem to mind that their car's are spewing toxins, but they have the nerve to complain about an airplane?? Most modern jets put out probably less toxins per square inch of air than most cars do, except for the new clean air cars.
Now I do understand about the basin. I knwo LA is in a basin because I just went on a vacation to South Cal two weeks ago and saw L.A. for the first time. I can promise you, though, that a GOOD CHUNK of L.A.'s smog comes from cars!!!! Factories and the like help, but think about it, you have 20 million people in the entire L.A. area, and most of the time there's one car par person. That's about 20 million cars + driving in L.A. area daily!!!! You think that won't produce a little smog?  
Hey, don't be offended because I said something negative about L.A. I saw L.A. when the smog blew away towards the evening and it's really a beautiful city.
My main problem with L.A. is not the smog, the traffic, or the congestion. I don't mind that much, it's the CRIME that killed L.A.
I'd never live there because of the crime. Thank you very much, I'll stay in San Diego or San Fran!! 

TropicalSkies-
Fly to new horizons
 
Trvlr
Posts: 4251
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2000 9:58 am

RE: TropicalSkies

Thu Aug 24, 2000 11:29 am

In San Diego, there is really no other option besides Miramar, Brown Field, and Tijuana. Gillispie and Montgomery Fields both have too many general aviation operations and both are boxed in by major highways and surface roads, that will not allow expansion. Unfortunately, each of the options left have faced fierce opposition on both the public and political sides, so as much as San Diego has the need (and in my opinion, an opportunity that should lead to obligation), I doubt that without a major political shakeup and/or a shameless leader of the regional transportation council or a mayor, then I doubt anything will happen       .

As much as El Toro would be a good site for an airport, the residents around there will need to cool off a little bit before the option of converting it to a civilian airport. Orange county voters approved Measure F in March this year, making it impossible for the county to spend any money on trying to lobby to develop a new airport, or block any plans to annex El Toro. Separately, a poll conducted shortly before the vote concluded that three out of five registered voters in O.C. did not know what Measure F was. They were probably lured in by the fact that Measure F would not allow the county to spend money on something. In my mind this would be my next choice for an airport if one could not be built here in S.D. Alas, that option, too, is rapidly becoming less of a possibility. So cross out Orange county, and again       .

More and more I feel that the Los Angeles area, and more precisely Ontario, will have to bear the full brunt of SoCal's problems. Ontario is already a fledgling international airport; Air Canada signed on with service to Toronto this past June. ONT also has lots of room for expansion, and, as you have said, much of that land is airport-owned.

So I think if none of the other projects gets off the ground, then Ontario will be the second gateway international airport in Southern California. Unfortunately, that still is not a good solution for us down here in San Diego!!!!!

Here is a column I read that embodies pretty much all of what I think on the issue: http://www.uniontrib.com/news/utarchives/cgi/idoc.cgi?559534+unix++www.uniontrib.com..80+Union-Tribune+Union-Tribune+Library+Library++%28James (just a little long, isn't it? )

Best Regards,
Aaron G.


 
Trvlr
Posts: 4251
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2000 9:58 am

RE: CstarU

Thu Aug 24, 2000 11:33 am

I would not be surprised if that happened! And then they will complain that the airport is taking away their "freely mobile houseboating culture"  . No offense to houseboaters, though. Actually the floating proposal is still workable, although it is a longshot.

Aaron G.
 
Guest

Here Is An Answer To All Your Questions.

Thu Aug 24, 2000 10:21 pm


The reason that airlines donot serve those routes anymore is that they donot turn a profit or make enough money for the airline. If a major route like that is unprofitable they donot run it.
 
mlsrar
Posts: 1384
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 7:41 am

RE: Here Is An Answer To All Your Questions.

Thu Aug 24, 2000 10:54 pm

In July of '88 I flew DL's L-1011 service from SAN-HNL...not too impressive, and only about 50 people on board! Lack of profitability. I used to live in Chula Vista(916 Redbud Road) just off of J-street, and I was always disappointed in the placidity of SAN, the lack of interesting aircraft, etc.

The closest paralell argument would be--why is there no MKE-LGW/MKE-FRA service. Milwaukee and the surrounding metro areas could easily support international services--especially FRA. Runway length is not a problem 19R is 10,100'. The difference is, MKE is a sizeable airport, and we see a variety of aircraft. We're one of the few trunk routes left in the world with DC-10 daily service (N132JC MKE-MSP-SFO-MSP-MKE, flights 352/353). MKE needs international service just like SAN needs HNL service.
I mean, for the right price I’ll fight a lion. - Mike Tyson
 
Bicoastal
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 5:56 am

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Fri Aug 25, 2000 1:12 am

Tijuana will be the solution to San Diego's airport needs. It has the capacity at Rodriguez and the airport has recently been privatized. The new owners are very savvy and experienced. They plan to make substantial capital improvements and market the airport to U.S. and international airlines. Unlike Brown Field on the U.S. side of the border, Otay Mountain does not block the flight path for the TJ airport. Tijuana is one of the wealthiest (relative to other Mexican cities) areas of Mexico. Combined with the San Diego region, there are opportunities. Problem with Americans is their often racist and historical view of Mexico and Mexicans as lazy and inable to build anything that lasts and works well. Those attitudes/misconceptions will be overcome and someday I'll fly Tijuana to Honolulu on a Mexicana codeshare with United/Star Alliance.
Airliners.net has many forums. It has spell check and search functions. Use them before posting!
 
travelin man
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 10:04 am

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Fri Aug 25, 2000 2:09 am

I fail to see why a city/county of millions of people could not support a daily 757/762 to HNL. When you talk about SNA possibly supporting a daily flight to HNL, how could a flight from SAN possibly be unprofitable?

Maybe in 1988, demand was low. Today, though, San Diego is one of America's biggest cities. A flight to HNL does not seem unreasonable, and my bet is that one will be commenced within the next year or two.

My bet: American with a 757, Aloha with a 737, or Hawaiian with a DC-10 (ex-AA).
 
RWally
Posts: 541
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 1999 10:28 am

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Fri Aug 25, 2000 2:19 am

AA will with a 767-300.
 
Tan Flyr
Posts: 1558
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 11:07 pm

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Fri Aug 25, 2000 2:50 am

Before UA retired the DC8-71, UA offered SAN-HNL service also. I think it is mostly a matter of economics my friends..Most carriers can make a better profit using the a/c on other flights with higher yielding revenue per passenger. Hawaii is mostly a liesure travel market. If AA, UA or DL were to consider ever re-entering the mkt, it most likely would be with the 757, as its' per seat mile costs are among the lowest of any type.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Fri Aug 25, 2000 2:57 am

I think United 747-200, Hawaiian Airlines DC-10, or Aloha 737-700 would take this route. I flew SFO to HNL on United 747-200 two months ago and I loved it! I can't understand why anyone would want to fly a little 737-700 across the Pacific Ocean for 6 hours considering the 747-200 is bigger, more comfortable and can get there an hour faster!

I agree with CstarU and TropicalSkies.
Those spoiled yatch owners down in San Diego would dock there yatchs near an airport and complain about noise. Its ironic that those so called conservative republicans in San Diego would acually demand for more government regulation to stop noise pollution. Did you know that at Orange Counties, John Wayne Airport, planes can't fly in after 10:00 PM even if its only 5 minutes late! It has to be re-directed to LAX and fly over the poor sections of South-Central LA so the rich people in Orange County can get to sleep! That is just awful!
I am uneasy about people with no knowledge of aviation making critical deciscions on flight patterns.

Sorry for the long post.

By the way, LA sucks!
I can say that because I lived ther for 11 years and dont miss it at all! I live in San Francisco now and I love despite the fact that LAX is better than SFO and people are better drivers in LA.
Bring back the Concorde
 
Trvlr
Posts: 4251
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2000 9:58 am

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Fri Aug 25, 2000 3:08 am

I do not know if I did say this before, but MIsrar was right; the Delta flight was stopped due to lack of profitability. Now, however, I think Delta as well as any other carrier could support a flight because now the city is a lot bigger, is definitely a lot richer (lots of people here with disposable income), and has better feed from other destinations, so it could accept spillover from overbooked flights in Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, or now even New York. I think first we will see Aloha enter the market with one of their 737s, and then a major carrier.

Aaron G.
 
User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 836
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 1999 12:18 pm

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Fri Aug 25, 2000 3:44 am

I'd be willing to bet that DL will be the one to offer Hawaii service again. They have really pumped up their presence here (including a daily Biz Elite 763 to JFK), and it just keeps growing and growing. It's like DL uses SAN as a parking lot overnight...

Personally, I'd make good use out of any nonstop service from here to HNL. Hawaii is a great weekend getaway for people on the US west coast, but the only reason I don't do it often is because of the required connections in LAX or SFO. Give me a 6:30am flight out of SAN (to arrive in HNL around 10am) and I'd be a happy guy. I could get almost a full weekend out there assuming the eastbound flight departs HNL anytime after 3pm.

-Scott
San Diego, CA

My name is Scott, and I am addicted to writing trip reports.
 
Trvlr
Posts: 4251
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2000 9:58 am

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Fri Aug 25, 2000 5:37 am

The area west of Terminal 2 does look like Marana or Las Vegas after 11:00 P.M., except with new planes. I bet that people actually would seize the chance to go to Hawaii for the weekend if the airfares were right, even if it was a 5.5 hour flight. What would really be cool, however, is if Qantas or Air New Zealand used one of their 767s on a route to Australia going through HNL. I think that Qantas should do that from with other cities along the west coast rather than having everything come through LAX. Probably not for a few years, though! 

Aaron G.
 
Tan Flyr
Posts: 1558
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2000 11:07 pm

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Fri Aug 25, 2000 6:08 am

re: the point made by trvlr above...last time I checked HNL was in the US. No foriegn carriers can carry Domestic passengers between any US points. Federal law my friends!
 
Guest

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Fri Aug 25, 2000 6:10 am

L.A. is cool
 
Guest

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Fri Aug 25, 2000 6:50 am

I believe there's flight restriction on takeoffs after midnight in SAN.

Regarding Rodriguez, will there be a separate custom and immigration entrance to the U.S? I don't think passengers wouldn't want to clear custom and immigration at the airport and then again at the border. And if they're going beyond San Diego Co. there's the border patrol checkpoints in Rancho California and San Onofre (close to the Dolly Parton Memorial--nuclear power plant that looks like a pair of huge breasts).
 
B-787
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2000 11:58 am

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Fri Aug 25, 2000 6:57 am

The airlines route their HNL flights from LAX because HNL is really used as a fuel stop more than a destination and LAX is more conveinient to the greater U.S. and for you guys who are jealous of L.A.(smog haters),we are a Metropolis not a chump lesure "city".
722,732,73G,738,739,739ER,752,753,762,763,764,744,772,788,D10,M80,300,332,320
 
ripcordd
Posts: 1032
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2000 1:12 pm

Superfly

Fri Aug 25, 2000 7:09 am

I rather fly on the 737-700 AQ than the UA 747'S or 777. AQ gives you plenty of room in coach and in first class and their service is awsome. I flew First Class OAK-OGG a month after they started the route, and from now on i will fly AQ to Hawaii. The 737 is so easy to get off and on compared to the 300 plus people on the 747 AQ 737 only hold about 120 people i think. They will do very well against UA if they get enough planes......They do a great job on the route....
 
Greeneyes53787
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2000 10:34 am

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Fri Aug 25, 2000 7:21 am

I was born and raised in SAN. I used to hang out at the old terminal on the northeast end. It was wonderful. But now we have a bigger port nearby. The runway is the same.

THE WEATHER

SAN's weather is milder and a little cleaner than LAX. I think the city is also prettier. In fact, looking around the whole world I see SAN as probably the easiest city to grow into a mega-city. And that's the reason we San Diegans suppress growth.

I, personally, would like to have a close-up aircraft observing place there. Others want more and more accomodations for all sorts of transportation. Probably if not kept checked San Diego could be allowed to approach Seoul or Mexico City in scope. The layout and weather draw people there.

But we can't limit this growth to just one airport in Otay Mesa or Mira Mar. Other people are going to want other facilities. Soon San Diego's little friendly city to the north would be Los Angeles. Instead of LAX being the bigger one. THINK about it, friends. Our SAN could have ten runways landing 787s simultaniously. That would be ... not good.

GE
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Fri Aug 25, 2000 7:24 am

RE: CstarU
You are right. Tijuana would be a bad idea. Going through customs once or twice would just suck especially if your going on a domestic flight. I frequently drive between San Francisco and Vancouver and I hate going though customs! U.S. Customs Agents are the lowest form of life on the face of the earth! They are scum! They should be put on an MD-80 and fly until it runs out of fuel or breaks down;which ever happens first!

By the way, I dont hate LA, I just think it sucks. LA does have more affordable housing and cheaper gas which is a good thing. And as I said before, LAX is better than SFO.
Bring back the Concorde
 
Trvlr
Posts: 4251
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2000 9:58 am

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Fri Aug 25, 2000 10:04 am

CstarU and Superfly: Rodruiguez field is actually on the border between the United States and Mexico, so any development there would consist of terminals on the U.S. side. One interesting problem that may arise if this option is pursued, however, is the fact that illegal immigrants may try to use the airport grounds as their way to the U.S. because of the interruption in the border fence. So there may actually have to be a walled checkpoint that cars may have to go through to leave the airport and go further into San Diego.

Greeneyes53787: That sure is a radical view, isn't it? First of all, San Diego will never grow as large as a comparable Los Angeles, Mexico City, or Seoul. Not within the next 150-200 years, at least. It does have many of the aspects of a city that is going to experience lots of growth over the next few years, which it will. Contrary to a few people's views here, however, growth can actually be good for the city, and soon it may be necessary for the city to preserve its quality of life. This is because a lot of the money that flows here comes from businesses that have employees, which, in turn, need to be housed and need services. And if those business and industries are not allowed to expand, then they will start to move out of San Diego because of the inhospitable economic climate. Then where do you think our quality of life will have gone?

Aaron G.
 
johnboy
Posts: 2554
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 9:09 pm

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Fri Aug 25, 2000 10:58 am

I know the TIJ/Rodriguez airport option was mulled over years ago, before the West Terminal (Terminal 2) was overhauled. I believe the powers that be decided that having a binational airport was too risky in terms of security and immigration issues.

However, I believe if the issue were revisited today, they might decide on a different course of action. Almost all Canadian airports have US Customs located there, so it wouldn't be any different than leaving from Toronto or Montreal.....
 
Trvlr
Posts: 4251
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2000 9:58 am

Re: TIJ Immigrationa Dn

Fri Aug 25, 2000 2:20 pm

Yes, but going going to and from the U.S. and Canada isn't exactly the same security-wise as going to and from the U.S. and Mexico. If U.S.-Mexican relations were as good as they are between the United States and Canada, and if there were not thousands of people trying to go across the border and live in the United States every week, then I think we would have already seen a joint San Diego - Tijuana airport at Rodruiguez field. However, that is not the case, so for at least the next few decades I do not think the Tijuana option will be pursued without illegal immigration and security being major issues, and even then, I do not expect the security to be as lenient as it is when going from the U.S. to Canada and vice versa. I can't help laughing when Vincente Fox says he wants an open border policy in place with the United States in 20 years....

Tan flyr: Both Air New Zealand has flights to and from Los Angeles and Honolulu using a 767. These flights are listed in the OAG, as well as ANZ's homepage as a full route and not as a technical stop, so I assume they are for sale to people.

Aaron G.
 
Bicoastal
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 5:56 am

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Sat Aug 26, 2000 1:49 am

The concept is to have controlled access to the U.S. via skybridge from the gates. If a plane were to arrive in Tijuana (TIJ) from the U.S., then San Diego (SAN) bound passengers would cross direcly into the U.S. and from the terminal and there would be no need to go through INS/Customs because passengers wouldn't have been allowed to be "loose" in Mexico.
Airliners.net has many forums. It has spell check and search functions. Use them before posting!
 
Trvlr
Posts: 4251
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2000 9:58 am

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Sat Aug 26, 2000 6:38 am

So would the new terminals be connected to the current ones at TIJ?
That would still not solve the problem of illegal immigration.

Aaron G.
 
sr117
Posts: 681
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2000 2:00 am

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Sat Aug 26, 2000 1:08 pm

As a resident of Tijuana I cannot understand why you think illegal immigration would be a problem if a US terminal was built for TIJ, it would be as much as a problem as it is in the border crossing (when you cross on foot I mean). First of all, security at the airport doesn't let anybody inside the gate/check in area that doesn't hold a ticket, and I assume that in a binational terminal people would cross from the US side directly to the gate area via a tunnel or bridge, whatever. So I really don't know where the illegal immigrants would be a problem, besides it's not like there won't be any security. Trust me, not all of us mexicans are aching to move to your side of the border.

However I have my doubts that it would go through, the airport group here already tried to push the proposal with officials in San Diego but I think it wasn't recieved very enthusiastically, so I doubt you have to worry about illegal immigrants pouring by the millions through a shared terminal.

BTW.. Fox's proposal is a bit idealistic but it's not exactly an open border policy, and its a very long term plan, I don't see a reason why we can't try setting goals for the future.
 
Trvlr
Posts: 4251
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2000 9:58 am

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Sat Aug 26, 2000 2:40 pm

I am not talking about people coming through the terminals, rather people trying to use the airport grounds to try and cross because it would an anomaly in the huge border fence between the U.S. and Mexico. It could create some serious safety hazards for the immigrants (as if they don't have tons of problems facing them already), as well as the passengers.
I know that not everyone in Mexico is "aching" to move across the border and come into the United States, but that still does not hide the fact that thousands of people, many not even from Mexico, try to cross the border illegally every week.

About V. Fox: I do agree with many of his proposals regarding the North American region including the freer flow of economic goods through our two countries as well as the United States playing a large role in strengthening Mexico's economy. However, I do not agree with Fox's proposal to have an open border for Mexamericanada (for lack of a better word) within the next 20-25 years. I believe it will take a lot longer than that to transform Mexico and the United States into a partnership of countries that could have a policy as lenient as that.

Best Regards.
Aaron G.
 
Bicoastal
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 5:56 am

RE: Why No SAN-HNL Service?

Sun Aug 27, 2000 2:13 am

Aaron,

I think it would be helpful if you had your parents drive you down to Otay Mesa, Mesa de Otai and to the Rodriguez Airport. It appears you don't have a good understanding of the layout. The airport is entirely in Mexico. Your concern about illegals crossing the airport property into the U.S. isn't valid. Airport security doesn't take lightly to people crossing runways on foot. Besides, they'd still need to cross the busy road on the Mexican side which is how you drive to the airport and then jump the fence into the U.S. which is well patrolled by the Border Patrol.

When you're down there looking at Brown Field on Otay Mesa (U.S. side) don't be fooled into thinking a major airport could be built there. Otay Mountain looms mightily over the area and prohibits commerical airlines from landing and taking off there. Plus, thouands of people live under the flight path and they, unlike most Pt. Lomans, were there first. Rodriguez doesn't have that problem with Otay Mountain because planes landing there fly through a valley, south of Otay Mountain, on the Mexican side. However, expansion plans at Tijuana will have to deal with the hundreds of thousands of residents living under the flight paths. Hopefully, their government will respect their opinions and concerns as much as San Diego political leaders have respected residents around our airports.

Xenophobic San Diegans will eventually turn to Tijuana's airport, despite having their political leaders snub the new owners of Tijuana's airport. There are no other workable options.
Airliners.net has many forums. It has spell check and search functions. Use them before posting!

Who is online