Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
kfinger
Topic Author
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:03 pm

Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:00 pm

Flights are slowly coming back, and new ones too, like Advanced Air to Mammoth Lakes.
 
DoctorVenkman
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Mon Feb 08, 2021 10:00 pm

Would love to see a little bit more expansion here from the majors. I'm hopeful that at least one of them will add a NYC flight and maybe we see some more frequency added to their hubs as well. A lot of regular transcon fliers, including myself, would love to be able to fly to NYC direct out of BUR on a major. Since I rarely fly in J on transcon, for me it's all about convenience, and for me BUR beats LAX in spades.

I think a 2x daily BUR-EWR on A320 would do really well for UA. If not EWR they should at least add IAH or ORD since the current connections are not great for eastbound and TATL destinations departing out of BUR.

Looks like ATL is coming back on DL which is great news. Similar to UA, I would be happy to see more competition to NYC with a JFK flight from them. Not sure what other destinations they could make work since their SEA hub faces stiff competition from Alaska, and for TPAC they are competing with UA's SFO flights and all the TPAC directs out of LAX. Maybe MSP or DTW but not sure if connections there could make it work since I doubt O&D is strong enough to sustain those flights. Honestly I would be happy if they just added more flights to ATL and SLC.

AA I think is similar to DL. Outside of strengthening DFW, maybe they could add JFK or ORD? But their DFW flight covers a lot of destinations.
 
nine4nine
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Mon Feb 08, 2021 10:27 pm

DoctorVenkman wrote:
Would love to see a little bit more expansion here from the majors. I'm hopeful that at least one of them will add a NYC flight and maybe we see some more frequency added to their hubs as well. A lot of regular transcon fliers, including myself, would love to be able to fly to NYC direct out of BUR on a major. Since I rarely fly in J on transcon, for me it's all about convenience, and for me BUR beats LAX in spades.

I think a 2x daily BUR-EWR on A320 would do really well for UA. If not EWR they should at least add IAH or ORD since the current connections are not great for eastbound and TATL destinations departing out of BUR.

Looks like ATL is coming back on DL which is great news. Similar to UA, I would be happy to see more competition to NYC with a JFK flight from them. Not sure what other destinations they could make work since their SEA hub faces stiff competition from Alaska, and for TPAC they are competing with UA's SFO flights and all the TPAC directs out of LAX. Maybe MSP or DTW but not sure if connections there could make it work since I doubt O&D is strong enough to sustain those flights. Honestly I would be happy if they just added more flights to ATL and SLC.

AA I think is similar to DL. Outside of strengthening DFW, maybe they could add JFK or ORD? But their DFW flight covers a lot of destinations.



Although the B6 BUR-JFK route is still under covid suspension until June, it has surprised me that pre-covid UA never countered with BUR-EWR given that the B6 flights ranked as one of the highest yielding routes in the system and was upgauged from a 320 to mix of 321/321n aircraft just before the world went to hell.

A little fact:UA was founded and started at BUR. since the height of its ops at BUR in the 90’s has basically been a lackluster presence. Pre Covid most of the RJ flight were all basically switched over to mainline. I think if Covid didn’t happen IAH, ORD and EWR would have been in the cards.

DL has shown some love with the addition of ATL pre Covid which returns from suspension soon.

I don’t see much growth from the majors for awhile coming out of Covid. I think the real wildcard will be that we may see a LCC/ULCC boom at BUR like what’s happening at SNA. I wouldn’t count out the entry F9 and G4 at some point.

NK entering BUR before Covid was interesting. They added a SEA flight that never happened in addition to the the LAS flights they operate, but I’m sure the SEA service will be back once things start normalizing. I think it could be possible eventually to see them add transcons like DFW, DTW, BWI and FLL.
 
Chemist
Posts: 935
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:05 pm

Sadly while BUR is my most convenient airport, I won't be flying until I get my vaccine. Who knows how long that will be? Originally I thought by April but now I'm thinking it will be as late as Sep or Oct.
I've flown the BUR-JFK and the BUR-BOS flights and they were both a great alternative to driving down to LAX and fighting traffic and parking down there. BUR is always my preference unless I'm going international (won't be doing that for a while, either).

Does anybody know how many flights WN is doing at BUR these days? Pre COVID I think they got up to 72/day; last I heard they were below 50 now.
 
User avatar
airportugal310
Posts: 3729
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:49 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:09 pm

nine4nine wrote:
A little fact:UA was founded and started at BUR.


I looked up histories for both UA (and CO to make sure I wasn't missing something) but can't find mention of BUR in either's past. Can you elaborate on BUR being where UA was founded?
 
nine4nine
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:28 pm

airportugal310 wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
A little fact:UA was founded and started at BUR.


I looked up histories for both UA (and CO to make sure I wasn't missing something) but can't find mention of BUR in either's past. Can you elaborate on BUR being where UA was founded?



Sorry. I had my memory backwards, getting older sucks. It was the other way around. They actually created BUR not the other way around with United Air Transport and Pacific Air Transport establishing the airport and building the United Air Terminal in 1930.
 
User avatar
airportugal310
Posts: 3729
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:49 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:44 am

nine4nine wrote:
airportugal310 wrote:
nine4nine wrote:
A little fact:UA was founded and started at BUR.


I looked up histories for both UA (and CO to make sure I wasn't missing something) but can't find mention of BUR in either's past. Can you elaborate on BUR being where UA was founded?



Sorry. I had my memory backwards, getting older sucks. It was the other way around. They actually created BUR not the other way around with United Air Transport and Pacific Air Transport establishing the airport and building the United Air Terminal in 1930.


Don't worry...happens! Still learned something here! Thanks!
 
OKCPanda
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:15 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:59 am

I love BUR. Avoiding the belly of the Beast at LAX is always paramount. Convinced my boss once that we could save an extra overnight and pull off a SAV --> SAC (via ATL) --> Supplier visit --> BUR --> Overnight --> Supplier visit early the next day --> PHX --> Meetings starting at lunch. He had never been to BUR or flown Southwest. He is now convinced that BUR is the greatest airport ever and Southwest is now at his top of the list of airlines.

Little funny biz about the SAC layover, since it was mentioned a couple people in our party never flown WN, they pulled a joke and paged them for "urgent security matters" to Gate B13. There is no B13 at SAC.
 
kfinger
Topic Author
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:03 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Tue Feb 09, 2021 1:55 am

Burbank is much easier than LAX, but lacks service to some destinations, including ones served frequently out of LAX like HNL, ATL, IAH. There are around 4 million people that live in Pasadena, Burbank and as far north as San Luis Obispo and Bakersfield that use it as it's closer and to avoid the chaos of LAX. What's stopping more service from being set up?
 
nine4nine
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:24 am

kfinger wrote:
Burbank is much easier than LAX, but lacks service to some destinations, including ones served frequently out of LAX like HNL, ATL, IAH. There are around 4 million people that live in Pasadena, Burbank and as far north as San Luis Obispo and Bakersfield that use it as it's closer and to avoid the chaos of LAX. What's stopping more service from being set up?



IAH is missing for sure, but WN added HOU in 2019, DL flew a 2xATL with a 73G which was suspended for covid but resumes soon with 319/320 equipment, and when AQ was around they flew BUR-HNL and BUR-OGG. Rumor has it that leading up to Covid, HA had been studying performance models shared from B6 on their JFK-BUR flights with the 321N.

If HA doesn’t pull the trigger which I would expect them to in retaliation to WN adding Hawaii-LGB services, then WN will for sure do it when the MAX7 comes online.
 
lostsound
Posts: 698
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 1:43 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:58 am

As a BUR resident I would love to see B6 expand BUR alongside LAX, though it's not likely to happen. Some of my best flights have been B6s BUR-JFK & BOS and I was scheduled for my first A32XN just before covid tarnished that dream. I would also like to see Hawaiian finally launch BUR.
 
DoctorVenkman
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Tue Feb 09, 2021 4:01 pm

kfinger wrote:
Burbank is much easier than LAX, but lacks service to some destinations, including ones served frequently out of LAX like HNL, ATL, IAH. There are around 4 million people that live in Pasadena, Burbank and as far north as San Luis Obispo and Bakersfield that use it as it's closer and to avoid the chaos of LAX. What's stopping more service from being set up?


From what I understand it's pretty limited by its runway size and the terrain in multiple directions. There is no option to lengthen them since all the land around BUR is occupied. So you need a high performance narrow body to make the longer flights work. Though back in the 80's the original 767-200s flew out of BUR to ORD on UA, but those had a much shorter takeoff requirement than the current fleet of 763's and 764's. The biggest aircraft that could work currently are probably 757-200 or A321 neo.
 
alasizon
Posts: 3044
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Tue Feb 09, 2021 4:12 pm

DoctorVenkman wrote:
kfinger wrote:
Burbank is much easier than LAX, but lacks service to some destinations, including ones served frequently out of LAX like HNL, ATL, IAH. There are around 4 million people that live in Pasadena, Burbank and as far north as San Luis Obispo and Bakersfield that use it as it's closer and to avoid the chaos of LAX. What's stopping more service from being set up?


From what I understand it's pretty limited by its runway size and the terrain in multiple directions. There is no option to lengthen them since all the land around BUR is occupied. So you need a high performance narrow body to make the longer flights work. Though back in the 80's the original 767-200s flew out of BUR to ORD on UA, but those had a much shorter takeoff requirement than the current fleet of 763's and 764's. The biggest aircraft that could work currently are probably 757-200 or A321 neo.


Not sure anyone from SBP is using BUR...

That being said, the BUR restriction is based on the number of gates. Both old and new terminals are capped at 14 gates and there is only so much you can do with just 14 gates. BUR doesn't need to be the "get everywhere" airport with LAX down the road at much lower fares. BUR caters to folks willing to pay for the convenience factor (and avoiding the 405).
 
DoctorVenkman
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Tue Feb 09, 2021 4:28 pm

alasizon wrote:
DoctorVenkman wrote:
kfinger wrote:
Burbank is much easier than LAX, but lacks service to some destinations, including ones served frequently out of LAX like HNL, ATL, IAH. There are around 4 million people that live in Pasadena, Burbank and as far north as San Luis Obispo and Bakersfield that use it as it's closer and to avoid the chaos of LAX. What's stopping more service from being set up?


From what I understand it's pretty limited by its runway size and the terrain in multiple directions. There is no option to lengthen them since all the land around BUR is occupied. So you need a high performance narrow body to make the longer flights work. Though back in the 80's the original 767-200s flew out of BUR to ORD on UA, but those had a much shorter takeoff requirement than the current fleet of 763's and 764's. The biggest aircraft that could work currently are probably 757-200 or A321 neo.


Not sure anyone from SBP is using BUR...

That being said, the BUR restriction is based on the number of gates. Both old and new terminals are capped at 14 gates and there is only so much you can do with just 14 gates. BUR doesn't need to be the "get everywhere" airport with LAX down the road at much lower fares. BUR caters to folks willing to pay for the convenience factor (and avoiding the 405).


It's physically limited in both runway and terminal space, so it will never grow beyond a certain size. But gates are not currently a limitation as far as I'm aware - maybe at peak times but there is certainly plenty of room to add new flights.

I think BUR could easily accommodate at least a daily flight to each of the majors' hubs, plus the smaller point to point flights we currently have to cities on the west coast. It's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario at the moment because locals mostly see it as a regional airport, but with the right investment from the airlines it could capture tons of connecting traffic through their hubs. As others have said, there are millions who live in the valley, Pasadena, DTLA, Hollywood, etc. who prefer BUR over LAX, but there just isn't the same level of service right now so they end up going to LAX most of the time.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 9883
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Tue Feb 09, 2021 5:01 pm

kfinger wrote:
Burbank is much easier than LAX, but lacks service to some destinations, including ones served frequently out of LAX like HNL, ATL, IAH. There are around 4 million people that live in Pasadena, Burbank and as far north as San Luis Obispo and Bakersfield that use it as it's closer and to avoid the chaos of LAX. What's stopping more service from being set up?


Proximity to LAX, with its carrier count (and thus price competition) and non-stop destination count inhibit BUR as much as runway or terminal facilities. It's the same dynamic with PVD and MHT vs. BOS, Salem vs. PDX, TUS vs. PHX, PBI vs. MIA...

Ask why WN ~20 years ago stop adding piddling or distant airports and commenced build out its network in DEN, ATL, LGA - because that's where the passengers are. There are some alternate airports in the biggest metros where you can mine convenience to get a fare premium. That's what they're doing with short-haul services at SNA, BUR, IAD, etc.
 
FATFlyer
Posts: 5273
Joined: Fri May 18, 2001 4:12 am

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Tue Feb 09, 2021 5:36 pm

kfinger wrote:
Burbank is much easier than LAX, but lacks service to some destinations, including ones served frequently out of LAX like HNL, ATL, IAH. There are around 4 million people that live in Pasadena, Burbank and as far north as San Luis Obispo and Bakersfield that use it as it's closer and to avoid the chaos of LAX. What's stopping more service from being set up?


WN's new SBA service will pull some passengers who previously used BUR from not just from Santa Barbara County but also Ventura County and whatever was coming from San Luis Obispo.

The new FAT flights on WN will be roughly equidistant to BUR for a Bakersfield traveler. Some of those likely will decide to skip the I-5/Grapevine traffic for the easier drive on 99 to FAT.
 
KarlB737
Posts: 2948
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 9:51 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Tue Feb 09, 2021 5:53 pm

DoctorVenkman wrote:
Would love to see a little bit more expansion here from the majors.


Is there even enough physical space for more? I've always preceived BUR as land-locked with virtually no real estate for expansion. Secondly, explain why they have no jetways.
If my observations are incorrect feel free to point it out because I can always be incorrect.
 
jplatts
Posts: 4715
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:13 pm

DoctorVenkman wrote:
I think a 2x daily BUR-EWR on A320 would do really well for UA. If not EWR they should at least add IAH or ORD since the current connections are not great for eastbound and TATL destinations departing out of BUR.


I agree that UA adding BUR-ORD nonstop service might be a possibility with BUR being one of the top U.S. destinations by number of annual passengers without any nonstop service from ORD. UA also has a FF base in both the Los Angeles and Chicago markets to support BUR-ORD nonstop service on UA.

I also agree that UA adding BUR-EWR nonstop service is a possibility as B6 might add BUR-EWR nonstop service if UA doesn't add BUR-EWR nonstop service. UA also can offer connections to New England, Eastern Canada, and TATL flights at EWR.
 
nine4nine
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:31 pm

Bummer, per today’s OAG release from enrilia it looks like DL is continuing suspension on BUR-ATL through the rest of 2021.

**DL ATL-BUR APR 1.9>0[1.0] MAY 1.8>0[0.7] JUN 1.9>0[0] JUL 1.8>0[0] AUG 1.9>0[0] SEP 1.9>0[0] OCT 1.8>0[1.8] NOV 1.9>0[1.4] DEC 1.9>0[1.4]
 
alasizon
Posts: 3044
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Tue Feb 09, 2021 6:51 pm

DoctorVenkman wrote:
alasizon wrote:
DoctorVenkman wrote:

From what I understand it's pretty limited by its runway size and the terrain in multiple directions. There is no option to lengthen them since all the land around BUR is occupied. So you need a high performance narrow body to make the longer flights work. Though back in the 80's the original 767-200s flew out of BUR to ORD on UA, but those had a much shorter takeoff requirement than the current fleet of 763's and 764's. The biggest aircraft that could work currently are probably 757-200 or A321 neo.


Not sure anyone from SBP is using BUR...

That being said, the BUR restriction is based on the number of gates. Both old and new terminals are capped at 14 gates and there is only so much you can do with just 14 gates. BUR doesn't need to be the "get everywhere" airport with LAX down the road at much lower fares. BUR caters to folks willing to pay for the convenience factor (and avoiding the 405).


It's physically limited in both runway and terminal space, so it will never grow beyond a certain size. But gates are not currently a limitation as far as I'm aware - maybe at peak times but there is certainly plenty of room to add new flights.

I think BUR could easily accommodate at least a daily flight to each of the majors' hubs, plus the smaller point to point flights we currently have to cities on the west coast. It's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario at the moment because locals mostly see it as a regional airport, but with the right investment from the airlines it could capture tons of connecting traffic through their hubs. As others have said, there are millions who live in the valley, Pasadena, DTLA, Hollywood, etc. who prefer BUR over LAX, but there just isn't the same level of service right now so they end up going to LAX most of the time.


Prior to COVID, WN's operation (which was up to 85 flights a day) was gate constrained and they were running roughly 10 flights/gate. On top of that NIMBYs started griping about the increased noise from the added traffic.

There never will be the same level of service at BUR compared to LAX; BUR still is a regional airport - for Ventura County, SFV, SGV and the High Desert and that is okay - it doesn't need to be more and the second you make it more is the second you lose the appeal of BUR. It doesn't need service to every single place - lets face it the number of passengers that absolutely need a single daily flight (which may or may not be timed at a time they need) to PHL, CLT, DCA/IAD/BWI, and MIA/FLL compared to the multi-daily options to those hubs from LAX is pretty low.

AA
    CLT - not enough local demand, connections are covered by DFW
    DCA - slot issue
    DFW - served
    MIA - better served by LAX within the network, FLL previously served by B6 and cut
    NYC - served by B6
    ORD - demand exists but is covered by WN at MDW; connections are covered via DFW
    PHL - not enough local demand
    PHX - served

AS:
    ANC - not needed, demand is adequately served via LAX and connections through SEA
    PDX - served
    SAN - not enough demand
    SEA - served
    SFO - served by UA
    SJC - tried and didn't go well, still served by WN

DL:
    ATL - served
    DTW - not sure if the demand is there for both, could support either DTW or MSP
    MSP - not sure if the demand is there for both, could support either DTW or MSP
    NYC - served by B6
    RDU - not enough demand
    SEA - served by AS
    SLC - served

UA
    DEN - served
    EWR - served by B6 via JFK, should be able to support 1x additional frequency
    IAD - not seeing the demand from the BUR area - demand to WAS is spread out through the LA basin and given UA views LAX as a hub still and emphasizes widebodies to IAD, I doubt you'll see service direct to BUR
    IAH - WN serves HOU, IAH might work 1x, DFW/DAL steals a lot of the connection potential
    ORD - demand exists but is covered by WN at MDW; connections are covered mostly via DEN
    SFO - served

WN has service to all of their megas except BWI so I don't see a whole lot missing. You're talking 1x to DTW or MSP, 1x to EWR, 1x to IAH that is missing. In reality, BUR connectivity on P2P markets like ABQ, BZN, JAC, COS, EUG, AUS, etc. is probably what better suits BUR and means more to the folks that rely on the convenience of BUR and being able to avoid connections. Personally I'm surprised nobody is flying BUR-ABQ 1x daily or at least 4x weekly simply for the Hollywood filming connections.
 
SurfandSnow
Posts: 1666
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Tue Feb 09, 2021 7:30 pm

KarlB737 wrote:
Is there even enough physical space for more? I've always perceived BUR as land-locked with virtually no real estate for expansion.


Is there even a need for more? BUR's 6,886 ft (2,099 m) long runway is actually fairly generous for a smaller Californian airport that lacks FIS (Federal Inspection Services, that is, the legal ability to handle international arrivals) and has long been overshadowed by its much busier neighbors. SBP (San Luis Obispo)'s longest runway is 6,100 ft (1,859 m) long. SBA (Santa Barbara)'s longest runway is 6,052 ft (1,845 m) long. STS (Santa Rosa/Wine Country)'s longest runway is 6,000 ft (1,829 m) long. SNA (Orange County)'s longest runway is 5,701 ft (1,738 m) long - and that awfully short runway offers the closest "mainline" commercial aviation flights to Disneyland. CLD (Carlsbad)'s only runway is just 4,897 ft (1,493 m) long, but there may be demand for some sort of commercial jet service from this airport in northern San Diego County?

Then again, I believe in all of the cases listed above, and of course certainly at BUR, surrounding mountainous terrain is already a major challenge. Take offs and landings at BUR are beautiful, but I imagine they might be somewhat challenging for pilots - especially on mainline jets. Then you have dense urban development on all sides, and I guess it can be pretty challenging; especially on the hottest California San Fernando Valley days.

Remember, Burbank voters did recently approve the construction of a new terminal. I believe the new terminal will be closer to the 5 freeway and downtown Burbank, where some old economy lot parking used to be. The current terminal is frighteningly close to the active runway, but strong local NIMBY activism has helped slow down approval and construction of a replacement facility that has now been in the works for decades.

Then again, it seems like BUR has never had much trouble squeezing newcomer airlines somewhere in the the rather spacious Terminal A and Terminal B facility over the years.. Aloha Airlines once offered nonstop service to Hawaii. Ryanair-inspired ULCC carrier Skybus Airlines once offered nonstop service to CMH and GSO for as little as $10 each way. In more recent years, incumbent carriers have expanded without much trouble. AA was able to bring in 738s for its new nonstop (ok, technically resumed - but a vast improvement over those awful IFE-less MD-80s) DFW flights. Anyone think AA could manage BUR-ORD with a 738 or A319? Maybe that route would be a better opportunity for UA?

DL finally decided to offer nonstop service to ATL, and I can't help but wonder if they would ever give BUR-SEA a try in the future. That route interested both WN and NK in the past, after all, but only AS seems to be able to make it work. Speaking of AS, would they ever give SFO-BUR a try? NK has stuck around, which is a good sign. I wonder if other ULCCs, like F9, G4 or SY would ever consider BUR service?

Rumor has it that HA has been reviewing B6's A321neo ops data - just in case a nonstop service to Hawaii could be viable with the type. I could see nonstops to both HNL and OGG being added, if possible.

KarlB737 wrote:
Secondly, explain why they have no jetways.


Isn't the outdoor boarding via ramp or stairs awesome? Often both a front and rear aircraft door are open for the deplaning and boarding processes, making for unusually fast, relatively unique and thoroughly enjoyable departure and arrival process. The open air baggage claim area is great too.

To be sure, the outdoor boarding experience at BUR is always going to be way better than standing in line inside a grungy LAX jetway. BUR's charmingly retro prop era terminal facility never seems to have long lines or feel all that crowded - check in, security and concessions always seem to be a breeze at BUR regardless of carrier (quite unlike LAX, where all 3 can be a nightmare!). I don't think there is really any urgent need to replace BUR's terminal, since the existing one has worked so well for so many years. I imagine the new terminal will probably look a lot like PSP or LGB.
 
DoctorVenkman
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Tue Feb 09, 2021 8:29 pm

alasizon wrote:
DoctorVenkman wrote:
alasizon wrote:

Not sure anyone from SBP is using BUR...

That being said, the BUR restriction is based on the number of gates. Both old and new terminals are capped at 14 gates and there is only so much you can do with just 14 gates. BUR doesn't need to be the "get everywhere" airport with LAX down the road at much lower fares. BUR caters to folks willing to pay for the convenience factor (and avoiding the 405).


It's physically limited in both runway and terminal space, so it will never grow beyond a certain size. But gates are not currently a limitation as far as I'm aware - maybe at peak times but there is certainly plenty of room to add new flights.

I think BUR could easily accommodate at least a daily flight to each of the majors' hubs, plus the smaller point to point flights we currently have to cities on the west coast. It's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario at the moment because locals mostly see it as a regional airport, but with the right investment from the airlines it could capture tons of connecting traffic through their hubs. As others have said, there are millions who live in the valley, Pasadena, DTLA, Hollywood, etc. who prefer BUR over LAX, but there just isn't the same level of service right now so they end up going to LAX most of the time.


Prior to COVID, WN's operation (which was up to 85 flights a day) was gate constrained and they were running roughly 10 flights/gate. On top of that NIMBYs started griping about the increased noise from the added traffic.

There never will be the same level of service at BUR compared to LAX; BUR still is a regional airport - for Ventura County, SFV, SGV and the High Desert and that is okay - it doesn't need to be more and the second you make it more is the second you lose the appeal of BUR. It doesn't need service to every single place - lets face it the number of passengers that absolutely need a single daily flight (which may or may not be timed at a time they need) to PHL, CLT, DCA/IAD/BWI, and MIA/FLL compared to the multi-daily options to those hubs from LAX is pretty low.

AA
    CLT - not enough local demand, connections are covered by DFW
    DCA - slot issue
    DFW - served
    MIA - better served by LAX within the network, FLL previously served by B6 and cut
    NYC - served by B6
    ORD - demand exists but is covered by WN at MDW; connections are covered via DFW
    PHL - not enough local demand
    PHX - served

AS:
    ANC - not needed, demand is adequately served via LAX and connections through SEA
    PDX - served
    SAN - not enough demand
    SEA - served
    SFO - served by UA
    SJC - tried and didn't go well, still served by WN

DL:
    ATL - served
    DTW - not sure if the demand is there for both, could support either DTW or MSP
    MSP - not sure if the demand is there for both, could support either DTW or MSP
    NYC - served by B6
    RDU - not enough demand
    SEA - served by AS
    SLC - served

UA
    DEN - served
    EWR - served by B6 via JFK, should be able to support 1x additional frequency
    IAD - not seeing the demand from the BUR area - demand to WAS is spread out through the LA basin and given UA views LAX as a hub still and emphasizes widebodies to IAD, I doubt you'll see service direct to BUR
    IAH - WN serves HOU, IAH might work 1x, DFW/DAL steals a lot of the connection potential
    ORD - demand exists but is covered by WN at MDW; connections are covered mostly via DEN
    SFO - served

WN has service to all of their megas except BWI so I don't see a whole lot missing. You're talking 1x to DTW or MSP, 1x to EWR, 1x to IAH that is missing. In reality, BUR connectivity on P2P markets like ABQ, BZN, JAC, COS, EUG, AUS, etc. is probably what better suits BUR and means more to the folks that rely on the convenience of BUR and being able to avoid connections. Personally I'm surprised nobody is flying BUR-ABQ 1x daily or at least 4x weekly simply for the Hollywood filming connections.


There are a couple flaws in this argument. You seem to be focusing on checking off O&D destinations and not considering the larger networks. The fact that B6 flies to JFK means nothing to me, as someone who flies for business regularly including TATL and Latin America. I have to book my flights on UA or DL. If there were more reasonable connections I would depart out of BUR every time for my flights to MIA, BCN, LIM, GIG, etc.

You are also assuming BUR passengers only want non-stops which I think is missing the point. People fly from BUR because it's not LAX. I can consistently get from my house to the gate in 20 minutes at BUR, on bad day LAX can be 2+ hours. And I live almost exactly half way between BUR and LAX from a geographical perspective. I will choose BUR every time over LAX if a reasonable connection exists. Many of my colleagues feel the same way. The only exception would be long-haul J to places like LHR or GRU where it would be worth sitting in a lie-flat the whole time out of LAX.
 
phllax
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:53 am

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Tue Feb 09, 2021 9:02 pm

As nine4nine said, the DL flight to Atlanta is toast. Hopefully the B6 flights come back. I don't see the UA SFO frequency returning anytime soon either and hopefully the mainline flight to DEN returns.

The gate limit isn't really the issue, except for the morning push. Pre-Covid there were still times when there was plenty of gate availability, especially in B and in A8-9.
 
nine4nine
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Tue Feb 09, 2021 9:03 pm

DoctorVenkman wrote:
alasizon wrote:
DoctorVenkman wrote:

It's physically limited in both runway and terminal space, so it will never grow beyond a certain size. But gates are not currently a limitation as far as I'm aware - maybe at peak times but there is certainly plenty of room to add new flights.

I think BUR could easily accommodate at least a daily flight to each of the majors' hubs, plus the smaller point to point flights we currently have to cities on the west coast. It's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario at the moment because locals mostly see it as a regional airport, but with the right investment from the airlines it could capture tons of connecting traffic through their hubs. As others have said, there are millions who live in the valley, Pasadena, DTLA, Hollywood, etc. who prefer BUR over LAX, but there just isn't the same level of service right now so they end up going to LAX most of the time.


Prior to COVID, WN's operation (which was up to 85 flights a day) was gate constrained and they were running roughly 10 flights/gate. On top of that NIMBYs started griping about the increased noise from the added traffic.

There never will be the same level of service at BUR compared to LAX; BUR still is a regional airport - for Ventura County, SFV, SGV and the High Desert and that is okay - it doesn't need to be more and the second you make it more is the second you lose the appeal of BUR. It doesn't need service to every single place - lets face it the number of passengers that absolutely need a single daily flight (which may or may not be timed at a time they need) to PHL, CLT, DCA/IAD/BWI, and MIA/FLL compared to the multi-daily options to those hubs from LAX is pretty low.

AA
    CLT - not enough local demand, connections are covered by DFW
    DCA - slot issue
    DFW - served
    MIA - better served by LAX within the network, FLL previously served by B6 and cut
    NYC - served by B6
    ORD - demand exists but is covered by WN at MDW; connections are covered via DFW
    PHL - not enough local demand
    PHX - served

AS:
    ANC - not needed, demand is adequately served via LAX and connections through SEA
    PDX - served
    SAN - not enough demand
    SEA - served
    SFO - served by UA
    SJC - tried and didn't go well, still served by WN

DL:
    ATL - served
    DTW - not sure if the demand is there for both, could support either DTW or MSP
    MSP - not sure if the demand is there for both, could support either DTW or MSP
    NYC - served by B6
    RDU - not enough demand
    SEA - served by AS
    SLC - served

UA
    DEN - served
    EWR - served by B6 via JFK, should be able to support 1x additional frequency
    IAD - not seeing the demand from the BUR area - demand to WAS is spread out through the LA basin and given UA views LAX as a hub still and emphasizes widebodies to IAD, I doubt you'll see service direct to BUR
    IAH - WN serves HOU, IAH might work 1x, DFW/DAL steals a lot of the connection potential
    ORD - demand exists but is covered by WN at MDW; connections are covered mostly via DEN
    SFO - served

WN has service to all of their megas except BWI so I don't see a whole lot missing. You're talking 1x to DTW or MSP, 1x to EWR, 1x to IAH that is missing. In reality, BUR connectivity on P2P markets like ABQ, BZN, JAC, COS, EUG, AUS, etc. is probably what better suits BUR and means more to the folks that rely on the convenience of BUR and being able to avoid connections. Personally I'm surprised nobody is flying BUR-ABQ 1x daily or at least 4x weekly simply for the Hollywood filming connections.


There are a couple flaws in this argument. You seem to be focusing on checking off O&D destinations and not considering the larger networks. The fact that B6 flies to JFK means nothing to me, as someone who flies for business regularly including TATL and Latin America. I have to book my flights on UA or DL. If there were more reasonable connections I would depart out of BUR every time for my flights to MIA, BCN, LIM, GIG, etc.

You are also assuming BUR passengers only want non-stops which I think is missing the point. People fly from BUR because it's not LAX. I can consistently get from my house to the gate in 20 minutes at BUR, on bad day LAX can be 2+ hours. And I live almost exactly half way between BUR and LAX from a geographical perspective. I will choose BUR every time over LAX if a reasonable connection exists. Many of my colleagues feel the same way. The only exception would be long-haul J to places like LHR or GRU where it would be worth sitting in a lie-flat the whole time out of LAX.



Agree. Besides the convenience factor is also the cost factor. I live in far South OC with SNA being my home airport but on average 2-2.5 times higher for airfares of that of LAX or BUR. I’ve often opted to take the Amtrak 3 minutes from my beach town home train station to the BUR Terminal Amtrak station ($32 business fare and 1:20 minute trip) to forego higher airfares of SNA, $125 each way Uber fares to LAX or 2.5 hours of sitting in traffic and paying parking at LAX.

Hopefully when things even back out BUR can get a FLL or MIA flight for Caribbean/Latin America connections.
 
alasizon
Posts: 3044
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Tue Feb 09, 2021 9:13 pm

DoctorVenkman wrote:
alasizon wrote:
DoctorVenkman wrote:

It's physically limited in both runway and terminal space, so it will never grow beyond a certain size. But gates are not currently a limitation as far as I'm aware - maybe at peak times but there is certainly plenty of room to add new flights.

I think BUR could easily accommodate at least a daily flight to each of the majors' hubs, plus the smaller point to point flights we currently have to cities on the west coast. It's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario at the moment because locals mostly see it as a regional airport, but with the right investment from the airlines it could capture tons of connecting traffic through their hubs. As others have said, there are millions who live in the valley, Pasadena, DTLA, Hollywood, etc. who prefer BUR over LAX, but there just isn't the same level of service right now so they end up going to LAX most of the time.


Prior to COVID, WN's operation (which was up to 85 flights a day) was gate constrained and they were running roughly 10 flights/gate. On top of that NIMBYs started griping about the increased noise from the added traffic.

There never will be the same level of service at BUR compared to LAX; BUR still is a regional airport - for Ventura County, SFV, SGV and the High Desert and that is okay - it doesn't need to be more and the second you make it more is the second you lose the appeal of BUR. It doesn't need service to every single place - lets face it the number of passengers that absolutely need a single daily flight (which may or may not be timed at a time they need) to PHL, CLT, DCA/IAD/BWI, and MIA/FLL compared to the multi-daily options to those hubs from LAX is pretty low.

AA
    CLT - not enough local demand, connections are covered by DFW
    DCA - slot issue
    DFW - served
    MIA - better served by LAX within the network, FLL previously served by B6 and cut
    NYC - served by B6
    ORD - demand exists but is covered by WN at MDW; connections are covered via DFW
    PHL - not enough local demand
    PHX - served

AS:
    ANC - not needed, demand is adequately served via LAX and connections through SEA
    PDX - served
    SAN - not enough demand
    SEA - served
    SFO - served by UA
    SJC - tried and didn't go well, still served by WN

DL:
    ATL - served
    DTW - not sure if the demand is there for both, could support either DTW or MSP
    MSP - not sure if the demand is there for both, could support either DTW or MSP
    NYC - served by B6
    RDU - not enough demand
    SEA - served by AS
    SLC - served

UA
    DEN - served
    EWR - served by B6 via JFK, should be able to support 1x additional frequency
    IAD - not seeing the demand from the BUR area - demand to WAS is spread out through the LA basin and given UA views LAX as a hub still and emphasizes widebodies to IAD, I doubt you'll see service direct to BUR
    IAH - WN serves HOU, IAH might work 1x, DFW/DAL steals a lot of the connection potential
    ORD - demand exists but is covered by WN at MDW; connections are covered mostly via DEN
    SFO - served

WN has service to all of their megas except BWI so I don't see a whole lot missing. You're talking 1x to DTW or MSP, 1x to EWR, 1x to IAH that is missing. In reality, BUR connectivity on P2P markets like ABQ, BZN, JAC, COS, EUG, AUS, etc. is probably what better suits BUR and means more to the folks that rely on the convenience of BUR and being able to avoid connections. Personally I'm surprised nobody is flying BUR-ABQ 1x daily or at least 4x weekly simply for the Hollywood filming connections.


There are a couple flaws in this argument. You seem to be focusing on checking off O&D destinations and not considering the larger networks. The fact that B6 flies to JFK means nothing to me, as someone who flies for business regularly including TATL and Latin America. I have to book my flights on UA or DL. If there were more reasonable connections I would depart out of BUR every time for my flights to MIA, BCN, LIM, GIG, etc.

You are also assuming BUR passengers only want non-stops which I think is missing the point. People fly from BUR because it's not LAX. I can consistently get from my house to the gate in 20 minutes at BUR, on bad day LAX can be 2+ hours. And I live almost exactly half way between BUR and LAX from a geographical perspective. I will choose BUR every time over LAX if a reasonable connection exists. Many of my colleagues feel the same way. The only exception would be long-haul J to places like LHR or GRU where it would be worth sitting in a lie-flat the whole time out of LAX.


Single daily Mainline flights out of outstations need better O&D performance than regional flights do. Only a small handful of people will pay a premium to fly out of BUR and connect when their destination is available at greater frequency and gauge, non-stop and cheaper out of LAX.

Most of the network connections you are referring to are already covered via the existing hubs or through N/S at LAX and there isn't enough demand to support the additional lower-yield connection traffic to add additional flights. Using the examples you mentioned:
Latin America - DL has SLC and ATL which covers most of the connections on their end; AA has DFW & PHX which has about 35-40% of the connections and for those whom connecting through MIA is more important to reach their destination, most are willing to take a flight from LAX or double connect through DFW; UA is the only one really lacking in this area
TATL - DL has ATL, AA has DFW, the premium experience exists out of LAX on all three carriers to connect to their NYC networks, and N/S are plentiful at LAX. UA has some connections through SFO and DEN but again they are the only ones really lacking in this area and hence why 1x EWR could work but timings become an issue on the return from EWR to pick up those connections on both ends since their current DEN schedule doesn't have any real slack to re-arrange flight times as it connects to all their main banks and they aren't going to sacrifice bread and butter domestic connections at DEN for TATL connections at EWR.

You are operating under the assumption that there is enough un-served connection traffic to add the additional east coast hubs that are missing service - I don't think that is the case with the exception of EWR. I used to operate under a similar assumption that BUR was underserved but after looking at the numbers and traffic flows, I don't think that is the case. It is under served on the P2P side, not the hub and spoke end. There are very few domestic cities that you can't reach 1-stop from BUR on the existing network and most of the traffic that can't reach major INTL cities 1-stop already chooses the non-stops or premium experience out of LAX.
 
DoctorVenkman
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Tue Feb 09, 2021 9:49 pm

alasizon wrote:
DoctorVenkman wrote:
alasizon wrote:

Prior to COVID, WN's operation (which was up to 85 flights a day) was gate constrained and they were running roughly 10 flights/gate. On top of that NIMBYs started griping about the increased noise from the added traffic.

There never will be the same level of service at BUR compared to LAX; BUR still is a regional airport - for Ventura County, SFV, SGV and the High Desert and that is okay - it doesn't need to be more and the second you make it more is the second you lose the appeal of BUR. It doesn't need service to every single place - lets face it the number of passengers that absolutely need a single daily flight (which may or may not be timed at a time they need) to PHL, CLT, DCA/IAD/BWI, and MIA/FLL compared to the multi-daily options to those hubs from LAX is pretty low.

AA
    CLT - not enough local demand, connections are covered by DFW
    DCA - slot issue
    DFW - served
    MIA - better served by LAX within the network, FLL previously served by B6 and cut
    NYC - served by B6
    ORD - demand exists but is covered by WN at MDW; connections are covered via DFW
    PHL - not enough local demand
    PHX - served

AS:
    ANC - not needed, demand is adequately served via LAX and connections through SEA
    PDX - served
    SAN - not enough demand
    SEA - served
    SFO - served by UA
    SJC - tried and didn't go well, still served by WN

DL:
    ATL - served
    DTW - not sure if the demand is there for both, could support either DTW or MSP
    MSP - not sure if the demand is there for both, could support either DTW or MSP
    NYC - served by B6
    RDU - not enough demand
    SEA - served by AS
    SLC - served

UA
    DEN - served
    EWR - served by B6 via JFK, should be able to support 1x additional frequency
    IAD - not seeing the demand from the BUR area - demand to WAS is spread out through the LA basin and given UA views LAX as a hub still and emphasizes widebodies to IAD, I doubt you'll see service direct to BUR
    IAH - WN serves HOU, IAH might work 1x, DFW/DAL steals a lot of the connection potential
    ORD - demand exists but is covered by WN at MDW; connections are covered mostly via DEN
    SFO - served

WN has service to all of their megas except BWI so I don't see a whole lot missing. You're talking 1x to DTW or MSP, 1x to EWR, 1x to IAH that is missing. In reality, BUR connectivity on P2P markets like ABQ, BZN, JAC, COS, EUG, AUS, etc. is probably what better suits BUR and means more to the folks that rely on the convenience of BUR and being able to avoid connections. Personally I'm surprised nobody is flying BUR-ABQ 1x daily or at least 4x weekly simply for the Hollywood filming connections.


There are a couple flaws in this argument. You seem to be focusing on checking off O&D destinations and not considering the larger networks. The fact that B6 flies to JFK means nothing to me, as someone who flies for business regularly including TATL and Latin America. I have to book my flights on UA or DL. If there were more reasonable connections I would depart out of BUR every time for my flights to MIA, BCN, LIM, GIG, etc.

You are also assuming BUR passengers only want non-stops which I think is missing the point. People fly from BUR because it's not LAX. I can consistently get from my house to the gate in 20 minutes at BUR, on bad day LAX can be 2+ hours. And I live almost exactly half way between BUR and LAX from a geographical perspective. I will choose BUR every time over LAX if a reasonable connection exists. Many of my colleagues feel the same way. The only exception would be long-haul J to places like LHR or GRU where it would be worth sitting in a lie-flat the whole time out of LAX.


Single daily Mainline flights out of outstations need better O&D performance than regional flights do. Only a small handful of people will pay a premium to fly out of BUR and connect when their destination is available at greater frequency and gauge, non-stop and cheaper out of LAX.

Most of the network connections you are referring to are already covered via the existing hubs or through N/S at LAX and there isn't enough demand to support the additional lower-yield connection traffic to add additional flights. Using the examples you mentioned:
Latin America - DL has SLC and ATL which covers most of the connections on their end; AA has DFW & PHX which has about 35-40% of the connections and for those whom connecting through MIA is more important to reach their destination, most are willing to take a flight from LAX or double connect through DFW; UA is the only one really lacking in this area
TATL - DL has ATL, AA has DFW, the premium experience exists out of LAX on all three carriers to connect to their NYC networks, and N/S are plentiful at LAX. UA has some connections through SFO and DEN but again they are the only ones really lacking in this area and hence why 1x EWR could work but timings become an issue on the return from EWR to pick up those connections on both ends since their current DEN schedule doesn't have any real slack to re-arrange flight times as it connects to all their main banks and they aren't going to sacrifice bread and butter domestic connections at DEN for TATL connections at EWR.

You are operating under the assumption that there is enough un-served connection traffic to add the additional east coast hubs that are missing service - I don't think that is the case with the exception of EWR. I used to operate under a similar assumption that BUR was underserved but after looking at the numbers and traffic flows, I don't think that is the case. It is under served on the P2P side, not the hub and spoke end. There are very few domestic cities that you can't reach 1-stop from BUR on the existing network and most of the traffic that can't reach major INTL cities 1-stop already chooses the non-stops or premium experience out of LAX.


I think you are coming at this from the wrong angle. It's not unserved traffic that additional flights from BUR would capture. It's customers that are currently being served by LAX who want a better experience. There is a huge customer base in the LA area that is currently forced to fly through LAX, that would gladly jump at the opportunity to fly through BUR instead.

Also it doesn't matter if I can technically fly almost anywhere with one stop if the connections are timed horribly. I'm not going to eat a 5 hour connection just to fly out of BUR. That's why I'm saying the majors should invest in increasing flights to their hubs to bolster connecting traffic. If UA for example added 2x daily to EWR and maybe 3x daily to IAH, that would allow me to fly basically my entire 2019 itinerary out of BUR instead of LAX on UA. SFO and DEN just don't cut it for the flights I am trying to make.

There is a huge market that is willing to pay higher fares to fly out of BUR instead of LAX and I think the airlines would do well to tap into that more. And it's not just leisure travelers looking to fly to Mammoth or Las Vegas for a weekend - plenty of business travelers who find BUR way more convenient.
 
DoctorVenkman
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:11 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
kfinger wrote:
Burbank is much easier than LAX, but lacks service to some destinations, including ones served frequently out of LAX like HNL, ATL, IAH. There are around 4 million people that live in Pasadena, Burbank and as far north as San Luis Obispo and Bakersfield that use it as it's closer and to avoid the chaos of LAX. What's stopping more service from being set up?


Proximity to LAX, with its carrier count (and thus price competition) and non-stop destination count inhibit BUR as much as runway or terminal facilities. It's the same dynamic with PVD and MHT vs. BOS, Salem vs. PDX, TUS vs. PHX, PBI vs. MIA...


The difference between BUR vs. MHT, PBI, TUS, etc. is that BUR has about 5 million people within 25 miles of it. MHT has what... like 250k people in that range? PBI is significantly further away from the main population areas than MIA or FLL. It's a totally different situation.

Those airports you listed are all significantly less convenient to the population centers than the main airports in those areas. BUR, on the other hand, is significantly more convenient than LAX for about half the people living in LA County. It's more similar to LGA, OAK, or DCA than any of the other airports you mentioned.
 
wnflyguy
Posts: 2506
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:58 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:40 pm

PreCovid it has been industry speculation that WN would Make BUR part of its SoCal LA area Triangle of market coverage.(BUR,LGB&ONT).

According and to reliable sources the 737MAX8 ETOPS will not have any restrictions making Hawaii from BUR.
I honestly would not be surprised if and when WN receives MAX8 ETOPS certification sometime this spring you see BUR-HNL added to the network in the summer.

Flyguy
 
aaway
Posts: 1511
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:23 am

SurfandSnow wrote:
....To be sure, the outdoor boarding experience at BUR is always going to be way better than standing in line inside a grungy LAX jetway. BUR's charmingly retro prop era terminal facility never seems to have long lines or feel all that crowded - check in, security and concessions always seem to be a breeze at BUR regardless of carrier (quite unlike LAX, where all 3 can be a nightmare!). I don't think there is really any urgent need to replace BUR's terminal, since the existing one has worked so well for so many years....


For 25 years, or so, the FAA has exerted subtle pressure on the BUR Airport Authority to replace the current terminal. Essentially, BUR operates with an exemption for air carrier operations due to the terminal not meeting certain FAA standards. Here is a paragraph from the 1996 FAA RoD (Record of Decision) regarding the approval of the original replacement terminal:

"The present terminal building was constructed and has been in use prior to World War II and does not meet the minimum FAA design standards specified in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design. A portion of the existing terminal building is located within the runway safety area for Runway 15/33. The terminal building and aircraft parked at the gate also violate the runway safety area and object free area for Runway 15/33. In addition, concerning Runway 8/26, the terminal building penetrates the FAR Part 77 primary surface, the Runway Safety Area, and the inner transitional Obstacle Free Zone."

For reference, here is the link to the FAA RoD: https://www.faa.gov/airports/environmen ... urbank.pdf
 
arfbool
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 2:02 am

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:10 am

I've taken the B6 BUR-JFK numerous times over the years and am patiently waiting for it to come back online so I can take it again (plus I need to get my shot.) I've only had to do the dreaded tech stop once! (another time it was announced, then taken back at the last second). I've always found the flight to be reasonably priced, and plus the convenience of BUR makes it an easy decision. That's not the case with other options. For example I've never taken BUR-ATL (and now it seems it's history) because the fares offered were outrageous compared to LAX.
 
Chemist
Posts: 935
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:41 am

I live in Ventura County. I once had to fly to Tulsa for business. I had the choice of LAX nonstop or BUR with a stop. Foolish me chose LAX.
On the way back, we landed a few minutes early at LAX. Waited 55 minutes for a gate. Once at the terminal, went out to pick up my parking shuttle which took another 45 minutes before it arrived. Then shuttle to car and I was on the 405 which took 2 hours to get home. Even with a connection, BUR would have been faster and much more pleasant.

I also love BUR for the lack of jetways. WN boards front and rear and it is fast. I was once returning on WN from the Bay Area. It was a day trip and I had parked in the structure across from the terminal. I timed on my watch the wheels touching pavement to my car. Five minutes. That's not an exaggeration. When landing on rwy 8, you rollout and make a right turn and 50 yards and you are at the gate. On WN, just take a seat at the rear of the plane. The stairs pull up and you are out and into the terminal in 1-2 minutes. Then out the security exit and cross the street and you are at your car. No way LAX offers that sort of convenience.
 
SurfandSnow
Posts: 1666
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Wed Feb 10, 2021 5:54 am

Chemist wrote:
I live in Ventura County. I once had to fly to Tulsa for business. I had the choice of LAX nonstop or BUR with a stop. Foolish me chose LAX.
On the way back, we landed a few minutes early at LAX. Waited 55 minutes for a gate. Once at the terminal, went out to pick up my parking shuttle which took another 45 minutes before it arrived. Then shuttle to car and I was on the 405 which took 2 hours to get home. Even with a connection, BUR would have been faster and much more pleasant.

I also love BUR for the lack of jetways. WN boards front and rear and it is fast. I was once returning on WN from the Bay Area. It was a day trip and I had parked in the structure across from the terminal. I timed on my watch the wheels touching pavement to my car. Five minutes. That's not an exaggeration. When landing on rwy 8, you rollout and make a right turn and 50 yards and you are at the gate. On WN, just take a seat at the rear of the plane. The stairs pull up and you are out and into the terminal in 1-2 minutes. Then out the security exit and cross the street and you are at your car. No way LAX offers that sort of convenience.


I live in West Hollywood, just about halfway between LAX and BUR. I just about always choose BUR for the reasons you mentioned - LAX's painfully long aircraft taxi times, chronic shortage of gates, heavy traffic to, from and within the airport at all times of day, and generally grungy ambiance from jetway to baggage claim just doesn't appeal to me. It also seems like lines for check-in, concessions and security are frustratingly long at LAX (regardless of airline), whereas those same things never seem to be an issue when flying any carrier at BUR. I think rideshare pickups might be cheaper from as well as faster to arrive at BUR vs. LAX too. Based on personal experience I agree with your belief that it is actually faster for me to connect via a reliable hub with few weather problems (LAS, OAK, PHX, etc.) than take a nonstop to or from LAX. BUR's convenience is truly amazing and readily apparent.

This past December I flew AA RSW-DFW-BUR and decided to splurge $87 for First Class on the longer DFW-BUR sector - my first ever experience in AA First, but hopefully not the last! It was an amazing flight, although I realize not all flights offers PTVs, meals or even flight attendants readily refilling drinks. Our 737-800 landed on Runway 8 and had a few second taxi from the end of our arrival runway right into gate A8. Even though we arrived several hours late and in violation of that night's voluntary curfew, the ground staff quickly pulled up the ramp so that we could get off the plane. By the time I walked to baggage claim, my checked bag quickly came out (at LAX, I don't think I've ever waited for less than 45 minutes for a checked bag) and I was in an Uber within 5 minutes or so. A nice quick easy walk to the BUR rideshare pickup area from baggage claim, too. Conversely, that walk to LAX rideshare pickups is an awfully long one!
 
twaconnie
Posts: 310
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:18 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:49 pm

Haven't been to BUR in a couple of years, did they ever build the new terminal?
 
DoctorVenkman
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:02 pm

Chemist wrote:
I live in Ventura County. I once had to fly to Tulsa for business. I had the choice of LAX nonstop or BUR with a stop. Foolish me chose LAX.
On the way back, we landed a few minutes early at LAX. Waited 55 minutes for a gate. Once at the terminal, went out to pick up my parking shuttle which took another 45 minutes before it arrived. Then shuttle to car and I was on the 405 which took 2 hours to get home. Even with a connection, BUR would have been faster and much more pleasant.

I also love BUR for the lack of jetways. WN boards front and rear and it is fast. I was once returning on WN from the Bay Area. It was a day trip and I had parked in the structure across from the terminal. I timed on my watch the wheels touching pavement to my car. Five minutes. That's not an exaggeration. When landing on rwy 8, you rollout and make a right turn and 50 yards and you are at the gate. On WN, just take a seat at the rear of the plane. The stairs pull up and you are out and into the terminal in 1-2 minutes. Then out the security exit and cross the street and you are at your car. No way LAX offers that sort of convenience.


It's stories like this that make me convinced that BUR has enormous untapped potential. It's hard to appreciate how much of a disaster LAX is unless you fly out of there often. I'm guessing the bean counters who live outside of LA don't realize there's a big pool of people who would happily switch to BUR (and even pay a premium) if given the opportunity.
 
cynlb
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:49 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:34 pm

Here is info on the replacement terminal. Not sure if there are any updates or changes to the timeline-
https://www.burbankca.gov/departments/c ... nformation
Last edited by cynlb on Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
kfinger
Topic Author
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 9:03 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:36 pm

DoctorVenkman wrote:
Chemist wrote:
I live in Ventura County. I once had to fly to Tulsa for business. I had the choice of LAX nonstop or BUR with a stop. Foolish me chose LAX.
On the way back, we landed a few minutes early at LAX. Waited 55 minutes for a gate. Once at the terminal, went out to pick up my parking shuttle which took another 45 minutes before it arrived. Then shuttle to car and I was on the 405 which took 2 hours to get home. Even with a connection, BUR would have been faster and much more pleasant.

I also love BUR for the lack of jetways. WN boards front and rear and it is fast. I was once returning on WN from the Bay Area. It was a day trip and I had parked in the structure across from the terminal. I timed on my watch the wheels touching pavement to my car. Five minutes. That's not an exaggeration. When landing on rwy 8, you rollout and make a right turn and 50 yards and you are at the gate. On WN, just take a seat at the rear of the plane. The stairs pull up and you are out and into the terminal in 1-2 minutes. Then out the security exit and cross the street and you are at your car. No way LAX offers that sort of convenience.


It's stories like this that make me convinced that BUR has enormous untapped potential. It's hard to appreciate how much of a disaster LAX is unless you fly out of there often. I'm guessing the bean counters who live outside of LA don't realize there's a big pool of people who would happily switch to BUR (and even pay a premium) if given the opportunity.


Maybe too risky to start service out of a secondary airport to a distant hub. And it doesn't have the name "Los Angeles" in the title, so people don't know to use it. Same with Oakland, which is just as close to Downtown SF on BART.
 
Chemist
Posts: 935
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Wed Feb 10, 2021 5:46 pm

kfinger wrote:
DoctorVenkman wrote:
Chemist wrote:
I live in Ventura County. I once had to fly to Tulsa for business. I had the choice of LAX nonstop or BUR with a stop. Foolish me chose LAX.
On the way back, we landed a few minutes early at LAX. Waited 55 minutes for a gate. Once at the terminal, went out to pick up my parking shuttle which took another 45 minutes before it arrived. Then shuttle to car and I was on the 405 which took 2 hours to get home. Even with a connection, BUR would have been faster and much more pleasant.

I also love BUR for the lack of jetways. WN boards front and rear and it is fast. I was once returning on WN from the Bay Area. It was a day trip and I had parked in the structure across from the terminal. I timed on my watch the wheels touching pavement to my car. Five minutes. That's not an exaggeration. When landing on rwy 8, you rollout and make a right turn and 50 yards and you are at the gate. On WN, just take a seat at the rear of the plane. The stairs pull up and you are out and into the terminal in 1-2 minutes. Then out the security exit and cross the street and you are at your car. No way LAX offers that sort of convenience.


It's stories like this that make me convinced that BUR has enormous untapped potential. It's hard to appreciate how much of a disaster LAX is unless you fly out of there often. I'm guessing the bean counters who live outside of LA don't realize there's a big pool of people who would happily switch to BUR (and even pay a premium) if given the opportunity.


Maybe too risky to start service out of a secondary airport to a distant hub. And it doesn't have the name "Los Angeles" in the title, so people don't know to use it. Same with Oakland, which is just as close to Downtown SF on BART.


OTOH, if these secondary airports got too popular, we would end up with them more like their ugly big siblings. Perhaps it's a good thing that we don't see TOO much of the potential realized.
 
DoctorVenkman
Posts: 267
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Wed Feb 10, 2021 6:11 pm

Chemist wrote:
kfinger wrote:
DoctorVenkman wrote:

It's stories like this that make me convinced that BUR has enormous untapped potential. It's hard to appreciate how much of a disaster LAX is unless you fly out of there often. I'm guessing the bean counters who live outside of LA don't realize there's a big pool of people who would happily switch to BUR (and even pay a premium) if given the opportunity.


Maybe too risky to start service out of a secondary airport to a distant hub. And it doesn't have the name "Los Angeles" in the title, so people don't know to use it. Same with Oakland, which is just as close to Downtown SF on BART.


OTOH, if these secondary airports got too popular, we would end up with them more like their ugly big siblings. Perhaps it's a good thing that we don't see TOO much of the potential realized.


I think it's possible to improve BUR's service without significantly impacting its convenience. All it would take is 15-20 extra daily departures to some extra hubs and we would have significantly improved access to the global networks of the US3. That would not significantly change the BUR experience - maybe it would take 8 minutes to get from curb to gate instead of 5!
 
nine4nine
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Wed Feb 10, 2021 6:42 pm

DoctorVenkman wrote:
Chemist wrote:
kfinger wrote:

Maybe too risky to start service out of a secondary airport to a distant hub. And it doesn't have the name "Los Angeles" in the title, so people don't know to use it. Same with Oakland, which is just as close to Downtown SF on BART.


OTOH, if these secondary airports got too popular, we would end up with them more like their ugly big siblings. Perhaps it's a good thing that we don't see TOO much of the potential realized.


I think it's possible to improve BUR's service without significantly impacting its convenience. All it would take is 15-20 extra daily departures to some extra hubs and we would have significantly improved access to the global networks of the US3. That would not significantly change the BUR experience - maybe it would take 8 minutes to get from curb to gate instead of 5!



Agree. B6’s newest add BOS which was just starting to gain larger load numbers and continued JFK service upgauged to 321’s from 320’s along with DL’s now scuttled ATL route seemed to be the beginning of a larger transcon buildup pre-covid. Hope that buildup will return soon and eventually see some ORD, EWR, FLL type flights added.

Having to make a stop or endure the stress of making the trip to LAX and all the chaos thy entails just isn’t worth it. Hope the airlines will eventually throw some of those larger west of the Rockies cities at least a daily or two.
 
DaCubbyBearBar
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 12:31 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Wed Feb 10, 2021 10:18 pm

wnflyguy wrote:
PreCovid it has been industry speculation that WN would Make BUR part of its SoCal LA area Triangle of market coverage.(BUR,LGB&ONT).

According and to reliable sources the 737MAX8 ETOPS will not have any restrictions making Hawaii from BUR.
I honestly would not be surprised if and when WN receives MAX8 ETOPS certification sometime this spring you see BUR-HNL added to the network in the summer.

Flyguy

I could see the MAX7 being good....but I just don’t know about the 8. I did BUR-LAS and had to fuel stop in ONT because of the winds and heat. According to the boarding person it happens a few times a year. That would mean about an approximate 2 hour delay arriving in Hawai’i. With only 4 gates in HNL, this would make things very tight.
 
caribbeanSwag
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:30 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:37 am

Burbank airport is featured on the home page of aveloair.com
 
nine4nine
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:47 am

caribbeanSwag wrote:
Burbank airport is featured on the home page of aveloair.com



They are indeed hiring for BUR. Awesome
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6621
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Thu Feb 11, 2021 4:10 am

DaCubbyBearBar wrote:
wnflyguy wrote:
PreCovid it has been industry speculation that WN would Make BUR part of its SoCal LA area Triangle of market coverage.(BUR,LGB&ONT).

According and to reliable sources the 737MAX8 ETOPS will not have any restrictions making Hawaii from BUR.
I honestly would not be surprised if and when WN receives MAX8 ETOPS certification sometime this spring you see BUR-HNL added to the network in the summer.

Flyguy

I could see the MAX7 being good....but I just don’t know about the 8. I did BUR-LAS and had to fuel stop in ONT because of the winds and heat. According to the boarding person it happens a few times a year. That would mean about an approximate 2 hour delay arriving in Hawai’i. With only 4 gates in HNL, this would make things very tight.


This can’t be right. You are saying that a 737-8 couldn’t make it from Burbank to Las Vegas in the heat without a fuel stop? That’s 223 miles.
 
wnflyguy
Posts: 2506
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:58 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Thu Feb 11, 2021 4:22 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
DaCubbyBearBar wrote:
wnflyguy wrote:
PreCovid it has been industry speculation that WN would Make BUR part of its SoCal LA area Triangle of market coverage.(BUR,LGB&ONT).

According and to reliable sources the 737MAX8 ETOPS will not have any restrictions making Hawaii from BUR.
I honestly would not be surprised if and when WN receives MAX8 ETOPS certification sometime this spring you see BUR-HNL added to the network in the summer.

Flyguy

I could see the MAX7 being good....but I just don’t know about the 8. I did BUR-LAS and had to fuel stop in ONT because of the winds and heat. According to the boarding person it happens a few times a year. That would mean about an approximate 2 hour delay arriving in Hawai’i. With only 4 gates in HNL, this would make things very tight.


This can’t be right. You are saying that a 737-8 couldn’t make it from Burbank to Las Vegas in the heat without a fuel stop? That’s 223 miles.

The only times I ever seen WN do ONT or LAX fuel stop during Santa Ana winds was when we still had 737-300. But since the retirements of the old birds it's no longer a issue anymore. With the retirement of the 737-300 and thanks to the better aircraft performances of the 737-7,8 and MAX8 BUR saw the ability to add BNA,MDW,DAL and HOU.

Flyguy
 
alasizon
Posts: 3044
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Thu Feb 11, 2021 4:57 am

wnflyguy wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
DaCubbyBearBar wrote:
I could see the MAX7 being good....but I just don’t know about the 8. I did BUR-LAS and had to fuel stop in ONT because of the winds and heat. According to the boarding person it happens a few times a year. That would mean about an approximate 2 hour delay arriving in Hawai’i. With only 4 gates in HNL, this would make things very tight.


This can’t be right. You are saying that a 737-8 couldn’t make it from Burbank to Las Vegas in the heat without a fuel stop? That’s 223 miles.

The only times I ever seen WN do ONT or LAX fuel stop during Santa Ana winds was when we still had 737-300. But since the retirements of the old birds it's no longer a issue anymore. With the retirement of the 737-300 and thanks to the better aircraft performances of the 737-7,8 and MAX8 BUR saw the ability to add BNA,MDW,DAL and HOU.

Flyguy


There were very rare circumstances during high winds combined with high temps that resulting in one or two days in 2019 that WN and AA both used ONT or LGB as a fuel stop for 737s (and I want to say a CR9 or two also made the fuel stop). I don't believe there were any days in 2020.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6621
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:32 am

alasizon wrote:
wnflyguy wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:

This can’t be right. You are saying that a 737-8 couldn’t make it from Burbank to Las Vegas in the heat without a fuel stop? That’s 223 miles.

The only times I ever seen WN do ONT or LAX fuel stop during Santa Ana winds was when we still had 737-300. But since the retirements of the old birds it's no longer a issue anymore. With the retirement of the 737-300 and thanks to the better aircraft performances of the 737-7,8 and MAX8 BUR saw the ability to add BNA,MDW,DAL and HOU.

Flyguy


There were very rare circumstances during high winds combined with high temps that resulting in one or two days in 2019 that WN and AA both used ONT or LGB as a fuel stop for 737s (and I want to say a CR9 or two also made the fuel stop). I don't believe there were any days in 2020.


Even for a 233 mile flight to LAS?
 
Goldenshield
Posts: 5033
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 3:45 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Thu Feb 11, 2021 5:38 am

BoeingGuy wrote:

Even for a 233 mile flight to LAS?

With short, stubby wings, operating in high temperatures, off a short-ish runway with a decent positive runway slope, you're lucky to carry anything at all. (even with a headwind!)
 
RightRudder
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:04 am

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Thu Feb 11, 2021 6:10 am

BUR has curfews after 10:00 pm to 6:59 am. And noise abatement procedures. Especially south of the 101 fwy. This limits landing slots considerably.
 
SWADawg
Posts: 716
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:43 pm

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:08 pm

The last time I had to make a fuel stop was when I was flying the -300 out of BUR departing on RWY 33 on a really hot day. A B17 took off in front of me and let me tell you it was intense watching that old bomber try to out climb the terrain to the north of the field that day. We took off next and I made a quick right turn onto the downwind for ONT. Flew right over the top of Fontana Raceway during a NASCAR race and landed, got a splash of gas and blasted off for PHX. I’ve never had to make a fuel stop in a -700 or -800 but I’m sure it still happens occasionally.
 
phllax
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:53 am

Re: Burbank Airport Aviation Thread - 2021

Thu Feb 11, 2021 7:25 pm

RightRudder wrote:
BUR has curfews after 10:00 pm to 6:59 am. And noise abatement procedures. Especially south of the 101 fwy. This limits landing slots considerably.


It's a voluntary curfew, not a hard one like SNA. There's plenty of ops during that time.

Goldenshield wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
Even for a 233 mile flight to LAS?
With short, stubby wings, operating in high temperatures, off a short-ish runway with a decent positive runway slope, you're lucky to carry anything at all. (even with a headwind!)


The runway slope at 84 feet difference between thresholds isn't the main issue, it's the engine out climb requirements with the surrounding terrain on 3 sides which caused the issue. I heard that they could only do max 30 people to OAK and LAS on the 300 when conditions were like that.

SWADawg wrote:
The last time I had to make a fuel stop was when I was flying the -300 out of BUR departing on RWY 33 on a really hot day. A B17 took off in front of me and let me tell you it was intense watching that old bomber try to out climb the terrain to the north of the field that day. We took off next and I made a quick right turn onto the downwind for ONT. Flew right over the top of Fontana Raceway during a NASCAR race and landed, got a splash of gas and blasted off for PHX. I’ve never had to make a fuel stop in a -700 or -800 but I’m sure it still happens occasionally.


I never saw anyone make the right turn, but I have seen AA MD-80's do a 270 degree left turn off of 33 to get to ONT when they used to send them in.

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