User avatar
DLSANMan
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:30 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:42 pm

LAOCA wrote:
blacksoviet wrote:
Why did Delta stop flying the MD-90 to MSP?


Delta is almost exclusively flying A320/321 and 757s into SAN now. The one exception is the random 717 flight to and from LAX.



The only 75’s for Delta are JFK.
SEA is 100% 320
ATL, DTW, MSP 100% 321 - see occasional 753 in rotation depending on time of year.
LAX 320 (changes next month) 717 dropped and E175 (Compass will shift to OO)
SLC mixed 320 and 321

I wonder if JFK will move to 321 making SAN 100% airbus?
 
User avatar
Coronado990
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:12 am

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:44 pm

DLSANMan wrote:

SDM is currently in negotiations with US Navy and SD Port Authority. I bet I know who will win that battle. Right now SDM is an extension of Coronado. Everything I am being told (married to the source) is that we can count out SDM being an extension of SAN.

Good thing the airport has its own set of strategist. I think our speculation is just that.


I don't know why the Navy would want Brown Field but SDM is owned by the city of San Diego. Are there any articles on this subject?
We're up.
 
User avatar
DLSANMan
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:30 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:39 pm

Coronado990 wrote:
DLSANMan wrote:

SDM is currently in negotiations with US Navy and SD Port Authority. I bet I know who will win that battle. Right now SDM is an extension of Coronado. Everything I am being told (married to the source) is that we can count out SDM being an extension of SAN.

Good thing the airport has its own set of strategist. I think our speculation is just that.


I don't know why the Navy would want Brown Field but SDM is owned by the city of San Diego. Are there any articles on this subject?



Training. There are no articles currently, while the city owns it, and a plan to develop was in place, the Navy now wants it back. It is also property adjacent to DOD land.
 
Yahnih
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:07 am

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:35 pm

They also have military cargo planes and jets fly in there.
DLSANMan wrote:
Coronado990 wrote:
DLSANMan wrote:

SDM is currently in negotiations with US Navy and SD Port Authority. I bet I know who will win that battle. Right now SDM is an extension of Coronado. Everything I am being told (married to the source) is that we can count out SDM being an extension of SAN.

Good thing the airport has its own set of strategist. I think our speculation is just that.


I don't know why the Navy would want Brown Field but SDM is owned by the city of San Diego. Are there any articles on this subject?



Training. There are no articles currently, while the city owns it, and a plan to develop was in place, the Navy now wants it back. It is also property adjacent to DOD land.
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1355
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:37 pm

DLSANMan wrote:
Coronado990 wrote:
DLSANMan wrote:

SDM is currently in negotiations with US Navy and SD Port Authority. I bet I know who will win that battle. Right now SDM is an extension of Coronado. Everything I am being told (married to the source) is that we can count out SDM being an extension of SAN.

Good thing the airport has its own set of strategist. I think our speculation is just that.


I don't know why the Navy would want Brown Field but SDM is owned by the city of San Diego. Are there any articles on this subject?



Training. There are no articles currently, while the city owns it, and a plan to develop was in place, the Navy now wants it back. It is also property adjacent to DOD land.


SDM?
 
User avatar
Coronado990
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:12 am

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:45 pm

SDM...Brown Field on Otay Mesa (San Diego Municipal).
We're up.
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1355
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:48 pm

Coronado990 wrote:
SDM...Brown Field on Otay Mesa (San Diego Municipal).


Ah ok, thanks.

The Navy wants it?
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:51 am

Is there enough land at SDM to build a good size terminal?
 
LAOCA
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:18 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Aug 22, 2019 4:13 pm

DLSANMan wrote:
LAOCA wrote:
blacksoviet wrote:
Why did Delta stop flying the MD-90 to MSP?


Delta is almost exclusively flying A320/321 and 757s into SAN now. The one exception is the random 717 flight to and from LAX.



The only 75’s for Delta are JFK.
SEA is 100% 320
ATL, DTW, MSP 100% 321 - see occasional 753 in rotation depending on time of year.
LAX 320 (changes next month) 717 dropped and E175 (Compass will shift to OO)
SLC mixed 320 and 321

I wonder if JFK will move to 321 making SAN 100% airbus?


That would mean the end of D1 service in SAN.
 
san88
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:30 am

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Aug 22, 2019 4:48 pm

One runway and limited airfield showed its constraints today. Complete hot mess operation this morning due to fog. Runway 9 was used for departures and arrivals until about 9am. Flights in T2 stacked and waited in alleyways for Runway 9 departures and the T2 Arrivals couldn’t get to the gate because of the congestion and held out on the east side. Then they switched back to 27 operations and allowed too many arrivals creating a ground control nightmare. Those original arrivals on 9 who couldn’t get to their gates are now stuck on the east side because of arrivals on 27.

Dios mio!
sit on the Captain side when you fly into SAN
 
SANMAN66
Posts: 886
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:37 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:20 pm

DLSANMan wrote:
I don't know why the Navy would want Brown Field , the Navy now wants it back. It is also property adjacent to DOD land.


Here's a scenario: someone always on the San Diego threads always brings up the missed opportunity about San Diego turning down the offer made by the Navy to sell Miramar to the city for $ 1.00 in the 1950s. What if San Diego took the Navy up on that offer, and then the Navy then decided it wanted Miramar back? We would still be stuck with Lindbergh.
PSA Gives you a lift!
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Aug 22, 2019 11:02 pm

What if the Airport Authority took Miramar and the Marine Corps took Lindbergh?

It would make sense since Lindbergh borders the recruit depot. The Marine Corps could reopen the runway where the cargo planes currently park. Then they would have two runways. They could then take over all three terminals plus the abandoned barracks on McCain Rd.
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Thu Aug 22, 2019 11:07 pm

DLSANMan wrote:
LAOCA wrote:
blacksoviet wrote:
Why did Delta stop flying the MD-90 to MSP?


Delta is almost exclusively flying A320/321 and 757s into SAN now. The one exception is the random 717 flight to and from LAX.



The only 75’s for Delta are JFK.
SEA is 100% 320
ATL, DTW, MSP 100% 321 - see occasional 753 in rotation depending on time of year.
LAX 320 (changes next month) 717 dropped and E175 (Compass will shift to OO)
SLC mixed 320 and 321

I wonder if JFK will move to 321 making SAN 100% airbus?

What gate does Delta park the 753 at?
 
SANMAN66
Posts: 886
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:37 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:42 am

blacksoviet wrote:
What if the Airport Authority took Miramar and the Marine Corps took Lindbergh?

It would make sense since Lindbergh borders the recruit depot. The Marine Corps could reopen the runway where the cargo planes currently park. Then they would have two runways. They could then take over all three terminals plus the abandoned barracks on McCain Rd.


That wouldn't work. Miramar has fighter jet operations. Pt. Loma has complained for years about the noise from Lindbergh, can you imagine if F-18s went roaring everyday over Pt. Loma? Those fighter jets are far noisier than airliners. Also I've heard that the Marines often use live ordinance at Miramar. Using live ordinance in a highly populated area is a no-go!
PSA Gives you a lift!
 
User avatar
Coronado990
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:12 am

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 23, 2019 3:30 pm

SANMAN66 wrote:
Also I've heard that the Marines often use live ordinance at Miramar. Using live ordinance in a highly populated area is a no-go!


Miramar is surrounded by populated areas as well. Not as dense as Lindbergh, of course, but no place for live ordinances and military training touch-and-goes. I can see maintenance support, cargo or troop transport but war games in the middle of a city does not seem right. But if that is what they want to do, then I would think the Navy should share with the Marines at Miramar instead of taking a civilian airport (SDM) away from a city that already lacks runways if that rumour is true..
We're up.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:22 pm

blacksoviet wrote:
Montgomery Executive Airport (MYF) has three runways. A 4 gate terminal can be built there allowing Allegiant, Jetblue, and Sun Country to shift all flights there. This will alllow for a smoother operation at SAN.

Runway 10L is 4598 ft long. This should be long enough for an A320 to depart to BOS.


So much wrong with the post its not even funny.

blacksoviet wrote:
Is the runway at CLD long enough for a 737-200?


No, but there aren't anymore 737-200s anyway. No air carrier aircraft can operate from that airport. They'd have to rebuild it and add more land. There isn't enough taxiway and runway separation (the second smaller runway is where a taxiway would need to be, the pavement isn't strong enough, and there is zero room for a terminal. Look at the airport details and google earth the place for crying out loud:

https://www.airnav.com/airport/KMYF
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
AZTECFAN
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 6:28 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:37 pm

blacksoviet wrote:
Montgomery Executive Airport (MYF) has three runways. A 4 gate terminal can be built there allowing Allegiant, Jetblue, and Sun Country to shift all flights there. This will alllow for a smoother operation at SAN.

Runway 10L is 4598 ft long. This should be long enough for an A320 to depart to BOS.



So much wrong with the post its not even funny.

But what is funny is remembering April 1, 1993 when a lot of people went to Montgomery Field to "watch" the space shuttle land.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Operations ATADS

Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:48 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
SANAV8R wrote:
There are plenty of great posts on here that give great information about SAN’s future including the next steps for Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 East and future routes or service. Our airport is right sized. Would we all love widebodies around the world? Sure. But we have a great airport and we should be proud of that and focus on what's coming.


A blast from the past! The SDAA assured us that operations at the single-runway airport would be constrained at 260,000 operations per year, and at 300,000 no further growth would be possible.

Regional jets and turboprops peaked in 1995. After the vote in 2006 general aviation and military operations were severely reduced, and regional jets largely moved up to 70 and 76 seat jets.

Operations per year
1990 212,553
1991 206,487
1992 213,983
1993 208,506
1994 221,044
1995 245,280 - peak number of operations (regional operations at 69,174)
1996 224,466
1997 224,488
1998 223,257
1999 222,356
2000 207,916
2001 206,848
2002 206,605
2003 204,713
2004 215,211
2005 229,192
2006 230,798 --- County Vote on Airport
2007 237,574
2008 228,167
2009 199,612
2010 190,137
2011 185,143 ---- post vote minimum
2012 187,326
2013 187,981
2014 191,765
2015 193,712
2016 196,935
2017 209,563
2018 225,058

The years 2017 and 2018 have seen a dramatic uptick in operations.

As of the first 6 months in 2019 estimated load factor 85.0% or 125.7 passengers out of 148.0 seats per operation.

The analysis done in 2004 that predicted constrained operations as early as 2016 believed that capacity would never go above 100 passengers out of 130 seats per operation.

Gate Utilization Rate (Operations) First half of 2019 compared to 2018 and % change.
Terminal 1 East 9.7 9.4 4.0%
Terminal 1 West 2.2 5.5 -59.6%
Terminal 2 East 6.9 4.1 67.5%
Terminal 2 West 4.0 3.9 2.6%
Terminal 2 FIS 1.0 1.1 -13.2%


Your assertions here are completely incorrect. They indicated they would cap out by 2030, which is about dead on. The dip was due to the recession and there was zero discussion about average capacity. I don't recall anyone saying anything about aircraft capacity other than a professor who got it all completely wrong.

Note the charts. Their forecast was ridiculously accurate, even with the operational hit from the recession. San Diego's airport solution will be costly, but can be found on slide 31:

http://sdapa.org/download/RyanHall.pdf

SANMAN66 wrote:
blacksoviet wrote:
Has Edelweiss ever flown the A330 to SAN as a sub? Does the A330 even have enough range?


I don't think Edelweiss has ever flown a A330 into SAN (do they even have A330s?) Lufthansa has flown the A330 here on several occasions as a sub. Yes, the A330 has the range.


Not without a rather large weight penalty. If LH operated it, it was capacity limited or they left all the bags and cargo.

blacksoviet wrote:
I would like to see Lufthansa fly the 747-400 to FRA 3x weekly.


Never happen. London is about as far as you can go with a 747.
Last edited by DL717 on Fri Aug 23, 2019 5:04 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:49 pm

AZTECFAN wrote:

But what is funny is remembering April 1, 1993 when a lot of people went to Montgomery Field to "watch" the space shuttle land.


LOL. Where? Miramar?
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
User avatar
hawaiian717
Posts: 3358
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 23, 2019 5:01 pm

DL717 wrote:
AZTECFAN wrote:

But what is funny is remembering April 1, 1993 when a lot of people went to Montgomery Field to "watch" the space shuttle land.


LOL. Where? Miramar?


Montgomery Field. An April Fools hoax started by a DJ on KGB-FM. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 23, 2019 5:02 pm

hawaiian717 wrote:
DL717 wrote:
AZTECFAN wrote:

But what is funny is remembering April 1, 1993 when a lot of people went to Montgomery Field to "watch" the space shuttle land.


LOL. Where? Miramar?


Montgomery Field. An April Fools hoax started by a DJ on KGB-FM. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html


What an epic prank! :rotfl:
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 23, 2019 5:11 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
I see two expansions possible:

#1 move the cargo operations on the north side of the field to Brown Field (SDM). The number of aircraft movements are minimal, and Fed Ex, UPS, Airborne/DHL, etc. all have sizeable existing operations near the border of Brown owing to the existence of the Otay cargo crossing. The runway at SDM is 8,000 feet so it has ample length. I recognize that there are mountains a few miles to the east of SDM, but that would not preclude some nuanced approaches to ensure a landing there or would not preclude downwind landings on 8L provided that the tailwind does not exceed limitations on the cargo jets there (mostly 767s and A300s). This would free up space northside for RON parking, a new terminal, or hardstands.

#2 more challenging, but should from an efficiency standpoint be more reasonable, close MCRD San Diego. The fact of the matter is that while the Marine Corps loves MCRD San Diego, its an ancient facility and its cramped/limited in operation. 1/2 of the training that Marine recruits undergo happen at Camp Pendleton anyhow. So, why not just shutter the Depot, move ALL recruit training to Pendleton, and convert -some- of the land aboard the Depot for use as a second runway. I am sure certain of the buildings at the Depot are registered historic landmarks, but there is enough parade ground and obstacle course land to build close spaced parallel or slightly offset runway. The fact of the matter is the Department of the Navy happily closed NTC San Diego and transferred recruit training to Great Lakes; they can do the same for MCRD.


Cargo is just a pin prick in their operations. Brown Field has worse terrain to the east than SAN and it can't even support an ILS due to terrain. No way Cargo is ever going there.

blacksoviet wrote:
How long is the runway at the Imperial Beach Naval Auxilary Landing Field? Can it handle an A319? Maybe some commuter flights can be moved there in the future?

In 60 years, could Lindbergh Field become slot-controlled? They will have to start thinking outside the box.


It will be slot controlled inside of 10 baring some massive recession that wipes out a few airlines.

As for the auxiliary field. Look it up. Its 2240'.

https://www.airnav.com/airport/KNRS
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 23, 2019 5:25 pm

san88 wrote:
One runway and limited airfield showed its constraints today. Complete hot mess operation this morning due to fog. Runway 9 was used for departures and arrivals until about 9am. Flights in T2 stacked and waited in alleyways for Runway 9 departures and the T2 Arrivals couldn’t get to the gate because of the congestion and held out on the east side. Then they switched back to 27 operations and allowed too many arrivals creating a ground control nightmare. Those original arrivals on 9 who couldn’t get to their gates are now stuck on the east side because of arrivals on 27.

Dios mio!


But hey! Naysayers say they're good forever!
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: San Diego Aviation Operations ATADS

Fri Aug 23, 2019 7:07 pm

DL717 wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
SANAV8R wrote:
There are plenty of great posts on here that give great information about SAN’s future including the next steps for Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 East and future routes or service. Our airport is right sized. Would we all love widebodies around the world? Sure. But we have a great airport and we should be proud of that and focus on what's coming.


A blast from the past! The SDAA assured us that operations at the single-runway airport would be constrained at 260,000 operations per year, and at 300,000 no further growth would be possible.

Regional jets and turboprops peaked in 1995. After the vote in 2006 general aviation and military operations were severely reduced, and regional jets largely moved up to 70 and 76 seat jets.

Operations per year
1990 212,553
1991 206,487
1992 213,983
1993 208,506
1994 221,044
1995 245,280 - peak number of operations (regional operations at 69,174)
1996 224,466
1997 224,488
1998 223,257
1999 222,356
2000 207,916
2001 206,848
2002 206,605
2003 204,713
2004 215,211
2005 229,192
2006 230,798 --- County Vote on Airport
2007 237,574
2008 228,167
2009 199,612
2010 190,137
2011 185,143 ---- post vote minimum
2012 187,326
2013 187,981
2014 191,765
2015 193,712
2016 196,935
2017 209,563
2018 225,058

The years 2017 and 2018 have seen a dramatic uptick in operations.

As of the first 6 months in 2019 estimated load factor 85.0% or 125.7 passengers out of 148.0 seats per operation.

The analysis done in 2004 that predicted constrained operations as early as 2016 believed that capacity would never go above 100 passengers out of 130 seats per operation.

Gate Utilization Rate (Operations) First half of 2019 compared to 2018 and % change.
Terminal 1 East 9.7 9.4 4.0%
Terminal 1 West 2.2 5.5 -59.6%
Terminal 2 East 6.9 4.1 67.5%
Terminal 2 West 4.0 3.9 2.6%
Terminal 2 FIS 1.0 1.1 -13.2%


Your assertions here are completely incorrect. They indicated they would cap out by 2030, which is about dead on. The dip was due to the recession and there was zero discussion about average capacity. I don't recall anyone saying anything about aircraft capacity other than a professor who got it all completely wrong.

Note the charts. Their forecast was ridiculously accurate, even with the operational hit from the recession. San Diego's airport solution will be costly, but can be found on slide 31:

http://sdapa.org/download/RyanHall.pdf

SANMAN66 wrote:
blacksoviet wrote:
Has Edelweiss ever flown the A330 to SAN as a sub? Does the A330 even have enough range?


I don't think Edelweiss has ever flown a A330 into SAN (do they even have A330s?) Lufthansa has flown the A330 here on several occasions as a sub. Yes, the A330 has the range.


Not without a rather large weight penalty. If LH operated it, it was capacity limited or they left all the bags and cargo.

blacksoviet wrote:
I would like to see Lufthansa fly the 747-400 to FRA 3x weekly.


Never happen. London is about as far as you can go with a 747.

What about a 747-8?
 
User avatar
Coronado990
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:12 am

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 23, 2019 7:21 pm

DL717 wrote:
As for the auxiliary field. Look it up. Its 2240'.

https://www.airnav.com/airport/KNRS


When I looked it up it said RWY 9/27 is 4997' X 336'.
We're up.
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1355
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:27 pm

Coronado990 wrote:
DL717 wrote:
As for the auxiliary field. Look it up. Its 2240'.

https://www.airnav.com/airport/KNRS


When I looked it up it said RWY 9/27 is 4997' X 336'.


Evidently, DL717 stopped reading the airnav info just a bit too fast. ;)
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 23, 2019 9:56 pm

Will the Navy share Imperial Beach with an airline like Delta Express or Horizon?
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Operations ATADS

Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:36 am

DL717 wrote:
A blast from the past! The SDAA assured us that operations at the single-runway airport would be constrained at 260,000 operations per year, and at 300,000 no further growth would be possible.

Your assertions here are completely incorrect. They indicated they would cap out by 2030, which is about dead on. The dip was due to the recession and there was zero discussion about average capacity. I don't recall anyone saying anything about aircraft capacity other than a professor who got it all completely wrong.


Image
Passengers are at 24 million for the year 2018, which is slightly above the bright red line which was supposed to be the worst-case scenario when the SH&E study was done in 2004.

Trust me, I read the SH&E report half a dozen times. It's in the forecast report. Unfortunately, the report has been removed from the Airport website. But you are correct, aircraft capacity was hardly mentioned in the public presentations until Professor Carson made a big deal about it.
The forecast was built around an average of 100 passengers out of 130 seats in the year 2030.

The SH&E study said they would have constrained operations somewhere between 2016 and 2030.


https://econweb.ucsd.edu/~rcarson/Airport_6perPage.pdf Professor Carson's presentation

Airport Site Selection Decision Document May 2006 wrote:
Rejection of four remote sites.

Remaining at the existing SDIA would have serious consequences. In the absence of a new airport, air travelers at SDIA will experience congestion
and delays, which are likely to reach the point where flight restrictions are imposed. As the airport becomes more constrained, airfares are likely to rise, with an estimated fare premium of approximately 20 percent may result. Although these consequences are serious, they do not point to any of the four remote sites as the solution. Projected passenger demand numbers for all of the remote sites are no more than the current capacity
of Lindbergh Field.

Conclusions
This market analysis draws the following conclusions:
The four remote sites, Campo/Boulevard Site, Imperial County Desert Site, Borrego Springs Study Site, and March Air Reserve Base, each have such severe limitations regarding their accessibility and are not acceptable solutions to meet the market requirements of San Diego County air travelers.
Last edited by PacoMartin on Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Operations ATADS

Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:51 am

PacoMartin wrote:
DL717 wrote:
A blast from the past! The SDAA assured us that operations at the single-runway airport would be constrained at 260,000 operations per year, and at 300,000 no further growth would be possible.

Your assertions here are completely incorrect. They indicated they would cap out by 2030, which is about dead on. The dip was due to the recession and there was zero discussion about average capacity. I don't recall anyone saying anything about aircraft capacity other than a professor who got it all completely wrong.


Image
Passengers are at 24 million for the year 2018, which is slightly above the bright red line which was supposed to be the worst case scenario when this study was done in 2004.

Trust me, I read the SH&E report half a dozen times. It's in the forecast report. Unfortunately, the report has been removed from the Airport website. But you are correct, aircraft capacity was hardly mentioned in the public presentations until Professor Carson made a big deal about it.
The forecast was built around an average of 100 passengers out of 130 seats in the year 2030.


https://econweb.ucsd.edu/~rcarson/Airport_6perPage.pdf Professor Carson's presentation
[quote=Airport Site Selection Decision Document May 2006]
Rejection of four remote sites.

Remaining at the existing SDIA would have serious consequences. In the absence of a new airport, air travelers at SDIA will experience congestion
and delays, which are likely to reach the point where flight restrictions are imposed. As the airport becomes more constrained, airfares are likely to rise, with an estimated fare premium of approximately 20 percent may result. Although these consequences are serious, they do not point to any of the four remote sites as the solution. Projected passenger demand numbers for all of the remote sites are no more than the current capacity
of Lindbergh Field.

Conclusions
This market analysis draws the following conclusions:
The four remote sites, Campo/Boulevard Site, Imperial County Desert Site, Borrego Springs Study Site, and March Air Reserve Base, each have such severe limitations regarding their accessibility and are not acceptable solutions to meet the market requirements of San Diego County air travelers.
[/quote]

Sorry, but Carsons assertions had zero credibility. Including his assertion that San Diego had zero demand for long haul international air service. He should stick to his desk job.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Operations ATADS

Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:55 am

DL717 wrote:
Sorry, but Carsons assertions had zero credibility. Including his assertion that San Diego had zero demand for long haul international air service. He should stick to his desk job.


I never heard him say that. He did say very clearly that the Chance of needing two long runways to support the simultaneous launch of two long haul wide-bodied aircraft effectively zero

Long haul international service at San Diego is never going to be a factor in SAN airport capacity. It is not necessary to hypothesize it at zero.
Last edited by PacoMartin on Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:56 am

Coronado990 wrote:
DL717 wrote:
As for the auxiliary field. Look it up. Its 2240'.

https://www.airnav.com/airport/KNRS


When I looked it up it said RWY 9/27 is 4997' X 336'.


Usually the longest runway is listed first. It has a PCN of 8 which can support a large helicopter, or carrier based turboprop. Probably as wide as it is for Ospreys. It doesn’t have safety areas, so subtract 2000 feet. In other words, useless.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Operations ATADS

Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:14 am

PacoMartin wrote:
DL717 wrote:
Sorry, but Carsons assertions had zero credibility. Including his assertion that San Diego had zero demand for long haul international air service. He should stick to his desk job.


I never heard him say that.

Long haul international service at San Diego is never going to be a factor in SAN airport capacity . It is not necessary to hypothesize it at zero.


He did say it. Several times. He also stated the market was mature and that there were no new markets that could support service which is completely ignorant. Further, as airports become congested, aircraft capacity per departure actually declines due to the cost of delay. He even compared SAN to LGW which is a joke. LGW has real estate for widebodies:

https://economics.ucsd.edu/_files/newsl ... 20SP08.pdf

He should stick to his day job. 4000’ for 737 to fly to most destinations? LOL

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/ ... -way-down/

https://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/oct/01/f ... lace-land/

Because those who can’t, well, you know....

By the way, long haul service undermined the SAN-LAX market, so it does matter. It has helped SAN significantly, but the help was short lived. Also, the 1995 peak you point to is incorrect. There is a data error in the FAA database for 1995. If you pull it here, you can see an out of whack operation count in October:

https://aspm.faa.gov/opsnet/sys/Airport.asp

It shows 37000 operations in a single month which is impossible for SAN. The rest of the months didn’t exceed 21000.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Operations ATADS

Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:31 am

DL717 wrote:
I don't recall anyone saying anything about aircraft capacity ...


I found some direct quotes
Over the forecast period, the average aircraft size increases from 120 seats in the base year to approximately 130 seats (129 seats in the Low scenario) - SH&E forecast report page 68

On page 60 they state Average Domestic Load Factors at US Large Hub Airports, 2003Source: US DOT, T100 Database, 12 Months Ending December 31, 2003. Base Year 2002 San Diego 74.4%. In another place in the report, SH&E states that they don't expect the load factor to go above 77% by the year 2030.

As you know the average aircraft size and load factors are already considerably higher than the number predicted for 2030.


DL717 wrote:
Also, the 1995 peak you point to is incorrect. There is a data error in the FAA database for 1995. If you pull it here, you can see an out of whack operation count in October:It shows 37000 operations in a single month which is impossible for SAN. The rest of the months didn’t exceed 21000.


You are correct. I only downloaded the annual summaries so I didn't notice one month was out of whack.

I should add that SAN may still exceed 260,000 - 300,000 operations by the year 2030. Even if Southwest only flies 175 seat jets into San Diego (which isn't likely) and they replace all the regional jets with an hourly shuttle on a larger single-aisle jet to LAX (which isn't likely), you still can't make a single runway last forever. With the new terminal, no one is going to even think about a new airport until 2040 at the earliest.
 
SANMAN66
Posts: 886
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:37 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 24, 2019 2:58 am

hawaiian717 wrote:
Montgomery Field. An April Fools hoax started by a DJ on KGB-FM. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html


I remember that prank! They did it so well that several hundred people gathered at Montgomery Field to watch the shuttle, but the only thing that landed there was a twin-engined Cessna! CNN picked up the story too! I heard those DJs at KGB-FM got in trouble for that prank!
PSA Gives you a lift!
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Operations ATADS

Sat Aug 24, 2019 3:21 am

PacoMartin wrote:
DL717 wrote:
I don't recall anyone saying anything about aircraft capacity ...


I found some direct quotes
Over the forecast period, the average aircraft size increases from 120 seats in the base year to approximately 130 seats (129 seats in the Low scenario) - SH&E forecast report page 68

On page 60 they state Average Domestic Load Factors at US Large Hub Airports, 2003Source: US DOT, T100 Database, 12 Months Ending December 31, 2003. Base Year 2002 San Diego 74.4%. In another place in the report, SH&E states that they don't expect the load factor to go above 77% by the year 2030.

As you know the average aircraft size and load factors are already considerably higher than the number predicted for 2030.


DL717 wrote:
Also, the 1995 peak you point to is incorrect. There is a data error in the FAA database for 1995. If you pull it here, you can see an out of whack operation count in October:It shows 37000 operations in a single month which is impossible for SAN. The rest of the months didn’t exceed 21000.


You are correct. I only downloaded the annual summaries so I didn't notice one month was out of whack.

I should add that SAN may still exceed 260,000 - 300,000 operations by the year 2030. Even if Southwest only flies 175 seat jets into San Diego (which isn't likely) and they replace all the regional jets with an hourly shuttle on a larger single-aisle jet to LAX (which isn't likely), you still can't make a single runway last forever. With the new terminal, no one is going to even think about a new airport until 2040 at the earliest.


Yes, load factors are higher than anticipated, but 77% was considered high back then. It means the airport can support a few million more pax, but they are still on the track to surpass the forecast everyone criticized. History has shown that airlines actually decrease the size of aircraft at delay prone facilities and jack up fares because a smaller plane is easier to park and lose revenue than a larger aircraft. I think they’ll hit the operations limit by 2025-2026 baring a major recession. They’ll slot allocate the place and delays will be horrid, but at least the new terminal will give people a place to sit other than the floor when their flights are delayed.

Carson’s irreparable damage is already done. He had ulterior motives to undermine the pursuit of a new airport for San Diego and gave the nay sayers something to lean on. He’s an anti-growth environmentalist first, economics professor second and given every departure out of Miramar would have gone over UCSD, a NIMBY. He probably lives near UCSD too. At his age, he probably won’t be around, but someone will do an analysis and determine the massive financial losses the region will endure as a result of not building a new airport because they bought his nonsense hook, line and sinker. I hope he’s happy.

Here is more of his nonsense peddling where he talks about international service and the airport design criteria which had nothin to do with two 747s landing simultaneously. You need that for independent operations regardless the aircraft type. It was completely ridiculous for him to say this at a time when the 787 was in development and enough was known about the aircraft performance and how such an aircraft would change the dynamics of international air service for places like San Diego.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/po ... story.html

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sd ... story.html

You used to be able to find more articles. He had an opinion piece out there that would make him look like a total fool viewed today. It was utter nonsense to anyone who ever worked in the industry back then and totally exposes him today, but it seems the news outlets are dumping docs over time. I’ll keep looking for some of them.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 24, 2019 3:52 am

Runway separation requirements are on page 86:

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... df#page100

At any rate, slide 31 below is the answer for San Diego. Solves much of the neighbor problems. They should start buying properties as soon as they finish the new terminal and get it over with. People are going to melt down anyway.

http://sdapa.org/download/RyanHall.pdf
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:37 am

washingtonflyer wrote:
So, why not just shutter the Depot, move ALL recruit training to Pendleton, and convert -some- of the land aboard the Depot for use as a second runway. I am sure certain of the buildings at the Depot are registered historic landmarks, but there is enough parade ground and obstacle course land to build close spaced parallel or slightly offset runway. The fact of the matter is the Department of the Navy happily closed NTC San Diego and transferred recruit training to Great Lakes; they can do the same for MCRD.


The Site Selection Process looked at the acreage to add a second runway at present location. It was about 300%-400% of the Depot. It took out hundreds of homes in addition.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:19 pm

DL717 wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:
I see two expansions possible:

#1 move the cargo operations on the north side of the field to Brown Field (SDM). The number of aircraft movements are minimal, and Fed Ex, UPS, Airborne/DHL, etc. all have sizeable existing operations near the border of Brown owing to the existence of the Otay cargo crossing. The runway at SDM is 8,000 feet so it has ample length. I recognize that there are mountains a few miles to the east of SDM, but that would not preclude some nuanced approaches to ensure a landing there or would not preclude downwind landings on 8L provided that the tailwind does not exceed limitations on the cargo jets there (mostly 767s and A300s). This would free up space northside for RON parking, a new terminal, or hardstands.

#2 more challenging, but should from an efficiency standpoint be more reasonable, close MCRD San Diego. The fact of the matter is that while the Marine Corps loves MCRD San Diego, its an ancient facility and its cramped/limited in operation. 1/2 of the training that Marine recruits undergo happen at Camp Pendleton anyhow. So, why not just shutter the Depot, move ALL recruit training to Pendleton, and convert -some- of the land aboard the Depot for use as a second runway. I am sure certain of the buildings at the Depot are registered historic landmarks, but there is enough parade ground and obstacle course land to build close spaced parallel or slightly offset runway. The fact of the matter is the Department of the Navy happily closed NTC San Diego and transferred recruit training to Great Lakes; they can do the same for MCRD.


Cargo is just a pin prick in their operations. Brown Field has worse terrain to the east than SAN and it can't even support an ILS due to terrain. No way Cargo is ever going there.


So, again, why not suggest down wind landings if there is a weather issue that makes landings on 26R prohibitive? SAN has a single ILS runway - Rwy 9 - and airplanes land downwind on Rwy 9 all the time.

The issue on SDM is not just the number of flights (which isn't a lot), but the physical space taken up by cargo ops at SAN. A good chunk of the physical northside complex is devoted to cargo operations for what amounts to about 6 arrivals/departures a day.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:25 pm

blacksoviet wrote:
What if the Airport Authority took Miramar and the Marine Corps took Lindbergh?

It would make sense since Lindbergh borders the recruit depot. The Marine Corps could reopen the runway where the cargo planes currently park. Then they would have two runways. They could then take over all three terminals plus the abandoned barracks on McCain Rd.


Another crazy suggestion. You do realize that the operations at Miramar are incredibly intense. Military type sorties (departures en masse), touch and goes, carrier qualifications, etc. These are absolutely incompatible with a downtown airport. Go over to Miramar some day so you can watch the touch and goes. F/A 18s typically use a left hand pattern (to mimic carrier operations), and that pattern would take those jets directly over the harbor, downtown, and the residential areas to the east and south of Downtown.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 24, 2019 3:19 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
DL717 wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:
I see two expansions possible:

#1 move the cargo operations on the north side of the field to Brown Field (SDM). The number of aircraft movements are minimal, and Fed Ex, UPS, Airborne/DHL, etc. all have sizeable existing operations near the border of Brown owing to the existence of the Otay cargo crossing. The runway at SDM is 8,000 feet so it has ample length. I recognize that there are mountains a few miles to the east of SDM, but that would not preclude some nuanced approaches to ensure a landing there or would not preclude downwind landings on 8L provided that the tailwind does not exceed limitations on the cargo jets there (mostly 767s and A300s). This would free up space northside for RON parking, a new terminal, or hardstands.

#2 more challenging, but should from an efficiency standpoint be more reasonable, close MCRD San Diego. The fact of the matter is that while the Marine Corps loves MCRD San Diego, its an ancient facility and its cramped/limited in operation. 1/2 of the training that Marine recruits undergo happen at Camp Pendleton anyhow. So, why not just shutter the Depot, move ALL recruit training to Pendleton, and convert -some- of the land aboard the Depot for use as a second runway. I am sure certain of the buildings at the Depot are registered historic landmarks, but there is enough parade ground and obstacle course land to build close spaced parallel or slightly offset runway. The fact of the matter is the Department of the Navy happily closed NTC San Diego and transferred recruit training to Great Lakes; they can do the same for MCRD.


Cargo is just a pin prick in their operations. Brown Field has worse terrain to the east than SAN and it can't even support an ILS due to terrain. No way Cargo is ever going there.


So, again, why not suggest down wind landings if there is a weather issue that makes landings on 26R prohibitive? SAN has a single ILS runway - Rwy 9 - and airplanes land downwind on Rwy 9 all the time.

The issue on SDM is not just the number of flights (which isn't a lot), but the physical space taken up by cargo ops at SAN. A good chunk of the physical northside complex is devoted to cargo operations for what amounts to about 6 arrivals/departures a day.


SDM can’t support an ILS due to an excessive climb gradient in the missed approach area, so no, it’s not the same. You can’t build more gates or another Runway at SAN without going a mile north, so the cargo footprint is irrelevant. SAN also supports an RNP, SDM cannot.
Last edited by DL717 on Sat Aug 24, 2019 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 24, 2019 3:27 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
blacksoviet wrote:
What if the Airport Authority took Miramar and the Marine Corps took Lindbergh?

It would make sense since Lindbergh borders the recruit depot. The Marine Corps could reopen the runway where the cargo planes currently park. Then they would have two runways. They could then take over all three terminals plus the abandoned barracks on McCain Rd.


Another crazy suggestion. You do realize that the operations at Miramar are incredibly intense. Military type sorties (departures en masse), touch and goes, carrier qualifications, etc. These are absolutely incompatible with a downtown airport. Go over to Miramar some day so you can watch the touch and goes. F/A 18s typically use a left hand pattern (to mimic carrier operations), and that pattern would take those jets directly over the harbor, downtown, and the residential areas to the east and south of Downtown.


Actually his idea is reasonable. The vast majority of Miramar’s operations will be Helo’s and Osprey’s, they don’t need a runway. Miramar is a fixed wing training base, so they don’t “need” to be there. The 18s are winding down and F-35s can go to Yuma or Fallon. Cost of living will be cheaper at both saving program money.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 24, 2019 3:38 pm

Yuma is pretty packed to the gills with helo squadrons as it is and does not have much room to expand. Fallon. That's a Navy base. While they're the same family; the two are kept separate.

In other words, given the size and nature of Marine Ops at Miramar, there is is -nowhere- on the west coast for them to go. There are at least 4 squadrons based at Miramar. That is a lot of planes to disperse.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:12 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
Yuma is pretty packed to the gills with helo squadrons as it is and does not have much room to expand. Fallon. That's a Navy base. While they're the same family; the two are kept separate.

In other words, given the size and nature of Marine Ops at Miramar, there is is -nowhere- on the west coast for them to go. There are at least 4 squadrons based at Miramar. That is a lot of planes to disperse.


They only need to move 36 planned F35s to Yuma with the 48 that are planned for the site to support that option. They were considering putting all Marine F35s there anyway with all the Ospreys at Miramar as one of the basing options. Most of the Helo’s are getting parked as the Ospreys come on line en masse. There is also ton of space at Pendleton that is grossly under utilized if they felt a need to stay in the San Diego area, this would also be a good place for the Ospreys. Not co-locating Navy and Marine F-35s, especially considering Miramar’s units are training squadrons, is also waste of resources and money considering the cost of living money thrown around to support Miramar. March in Riverside is also an empty playground.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:22 pm

Moving nearly half a dozen squadrons (including a KC130 tanker squadron) simply isnt a matter of plucking them up and dropping them in another space. All the tenant commands and support infrastructure must be moved too. Pendleton does not have the space; Yuma does not have the space. Period. USMC and Navy assets don't mix and March is not a USN/USMC command facility.

Just look at a map (or a satellite photo) and tell me how you are going to disperse the infrastructure that exists there. Simple answer - you aren't.

If you thought moving MCRD and the parade ground was a mess, just wait until there is a demand to move Miramar to Yuma / Pendleton / ????
 
User avatar
Coronado990
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:12 am

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 24, 2019 8:59 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
Moving nearly half a dozen squadrons (including a KC130 tanker squadron) simply isnt a matter of plucking them up and dropping them in another space. All the tenant commands and support infrastructure must be moved too. Pendleton does not have the space; Yuma does not have the space. Period. USMC and Navy assets don't mix and March is not a USN/USMC command facility.

Just look at a map (or a satellite photo) and tell me how you are going to disperse the infrastructure that exists there. Simple answer - you aren't.

If you thought moving MCRD and the parade ground was a mess, just wait until there is a demand to move Miramar to Yuma / Pendleton / ????


Yet the Navy moved out of NAS Miramar in 1996 and Top Gun relocated to Fallon. The Marines closed El Toro and shifted operations to Miramar. So it has been done in the past. Hard, but certainly not impossible.
We're up.
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1233
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 24, 2019 10:13 pm

Why did the Marines close El Toro when they knew that San Diego needed an airport at Miramar?
 
SANAV8R
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 1:15 am

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 24, 2019 10:28 pm

blacksoviet wrote:
Why did the Marines close El Toro when they knew that San Diego needed an airport at Miramar?


The Marines did not close El Toro because they knew San Diego needed an airport.

The 1993 Base Realignment and Closure Commission recommended that Marine Corps Air Station(s) El Toro & Tustin be closed down and that NAS Miramar be transferred to the Marine Corps. That was the plan. The Navy then moved multiple units from Miramar to Point Mugu, Fallon, Oceana, and Norfolk

I suggest you read about BRAC and the histories of El Toro, Tustin, Miramar as well as there are plenty of news articles from the papers in San Diego and Orange County (or even Wikipedia) that discuss many years of public disputes, hazardous cleanup, noise pollution and proposed airports in both cities. It will give you many answers about why many of the military sites in Southern California are not suitable for civilian use.
You're either gonna love me or hate me. There is no in between with me.
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 24, 2019 11:34 pm

Coronado990 wrote:
washingtonflyer wrote:
Moving nearly half a dozen squadrons (including a KC130 tanker squadron) simply isnt a matter of plucking them up and dropping them in another space. All the tenant commands and support infrastructure must be moved too. Pendleton does not have the space; Yuma does not have the space. Period. USMC and Navy assets don't mix and March is not a USN/USMC command facility.

Just look at a map (or a satellite photo) and tell me how you are going to disperse the infrastructure that exists there. Simple answer - you aren't.

If you thought moving MCRD and the parade ground was a mess, just wait until there is a demand to move Miramar to Yuma / Pendleton / ????


Yet the Navy moved out of NAS Miramar in 1996 and Top Gun relocated to Fallon. The Marines closed El Toro and shifted operations to Miramar. So it has been done in the past. Hard, but certainly not impossible.


Top Gun moved to Fallon (as much a punishment for Tail Hook as anything else). Other units moved to Mugu, Lemore, Oceana, and Norfolk (as SANAV8R noted). In other words, it took a massive realignment of assets to absorb the Navy's loss of Miramar.

The marines simply do not have the assets to move squadrons all over the place. The only significant west coast marine assets are Yuma, Pendleton, and 29 Stumps. There is no field at 29 Stumps. Pendleton has a single runway that is 6,000 feet in length and is packed with helicopters. Yuma has adequate runways, but is crowded.

Simply put there is no other room. Miramar is the USMC's single largest jet base on west coast, and there is NO place else to send them.

The only Naval / USMC asset that I would think would be available for any USMC use / transfer would be Point Mugu which is not as utilized as much as it once was.
Last edited by washingtonflyer on Sat Aug 24, 2019 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
SANMAN66
Posts: 886
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:37 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 24, 2019 11:46 pm

The only problem remains, if the Marines gave up Miramar, MCRD, etc. We can dream about where to put a new airport for SAN, but how to appease the NIMBYs?
PSA Gives you a lift!
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1734
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: San Diego Aviation Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 24, 2019 11:55 pm

SANAV8R wrote:
blacksoviet wrote:
Why did the Marines close El Toro when they knew that San Diego needed an airport at Miramar?


The Marines did not close El Toro because they knew San Diego needed an airport.

The 1993 Base Realignment and Closure Commission recommended that Marine Corps Air Station(s) El Toro & Tustin be closed down and that NAS Miramar be transferred to the Marine Corps. That was the plan. The Navy then moved multiple units from Miramar to Point Mugu, Fallon, Oceana, and Norfolk

I suggest you read about BRAC and the histories of El Toro, Tustin, Miramar as well as there are plenty of news articles from the papers in San Diego and Orange County (or even Wikipedia) that discuss many years of public disputes, hazardous cleanup, noise pollution and proposed airports in both cities. It will give you many answers about why many of the military sites in Southern California are not suitable for civilian use.


Actually, Miramar was to close and El Toro was to stay open. Local politicians and congresspeople begged an pleaded to keep Miramar open. Orange County wanted a new airport so it looked like a win win. Now El Toro is a park and San Diego is short an adequate airport. Bravo!

Blast from the past:

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos