In the North County times there is an article about a professor from UCSD that says that numbers by the SDCRAA are inflated and brings up issues on why they maybe.

UCSD professor disputes need for new airport

The professor is a NIMBY.

I will be the first San Diegan to publically proclaim, "I LOVE LINDBERGH!!", but realistically, it cannot continue. San Diego needs another airport.

All of Southern California is becoming relentlessly hemmed in. BUR, LGB, and SNA all are besieged by forces that desperately want them closed. "Everybody should just use LAX" is their mantra. Well, guess what? LAX just approved a plan that would cap passengers in the upcoming years. ONT is simply too distant in the vast metropolis that is the metro Los Angeles area and will never be a viable alternative.

It is unfortunate to say that a vast number of the cars clogging up the 405 are travelling from San Diego to use LAX. What does that tell you about San Diego?

Lindbergh is a beautiful airport with a spectacular approach for both the passenger and the spotter. There is nothing more amazing that walking through Balboa Park and every few minutes hearing and then seeing a graceful bird gliding majestically in for landing. You can almost reach out and touch the planes. It is also incredibly convenient for those of us in the nearby neighborhoods.

But it is going to be unable to meet the needs of this portion of California. The runway is less than 10,000 feet long, and there is terrain to clear at the end of the runway that creates serious restrictions on long-haul aircraft, although British Airways used to get a fully loaded 777 of the ground to fly SAN-LHR non-stop!

The case for/against Miramar and other military sites has been discussed. My personal opinion, knowing the terrain and accessibility quite well as a long time resident, is that it is the only viable site. There is simply no other location.

I despise the thought of losing Lindbergh, but in reality, all good things must one day come to an end.

I've only been to San Diego once so I'm obviously not an expert on the area, but is there enough room out there to build another airport close enough to the city?

Well, even if the esteemed professor's assessment is correct, which it isn't, the one factor overlooked is that SAN is not suitable as an airport for such a large metro area in its CURRENT form (regardless of the fact that it may not be at capacity).

Quote: I've only been to San Diego once so I'm obviously not an expert on the area, but is there enough room out there to build another airport close enough to the city?

No, San Diego is geographically unique - it is basically a walled city a la West Berlin. To the south is Mexico, to the west is the Pacific ocean, to the east are mountains, and to the north is Camp Pendleton.

San Diego is also unique in that there is virtually NO flat terrain large enough to be suitable for a new airport. Even Lindbergh requires a breathtaking dive over terrain on approach, and terrain must be cleared at the other end of the runway on take-off.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 4): San Diego is also unique in that there is virtually NO flat terrain large enough to be suitable for a new airport.

Would the city ever consider a sort of Japan-like reclaimed land island airport out in the ocean?

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 1): I will be the first San Diegan to publically proclaim, "I LOVE LINDBERGH!!", but realistically, it cannot continue. San Diego needs another airport.

   Being a native of the city (who moved away, you can take the person out of San Diego, but you can't take San Diego out of the Person) I love the Lindbergh also.

I know, San Diego can use the Dallas model, You know, WN gets the good old airport, and all the other suckers get stuck miles out of town!
  

Quoting AviationAddict (Reply 5): Would the city ever consider a sort of Japan-like reclaimed land island airport out in the ocean?

NO, NO, NO. Japan's reclaimed land airports are in protected shallow harbors, not in deep unprotected oceans. Besides, Lindbergh is built on reclaimed land in the harbor anyway. San Diego was way ahead of it's time in that respect. So you are a little too late.

Hey, if anybody wants to see what an airliner looks like at Miramar (NKX) there is a ATA L-1011 heading there right now from ANC arrival time is 1:05pm.

Airline American Trans Air
Flight Number 8704
Departure City (Airport) Anchorage, AK (ANC)
Departure Time 03/12/2006 07:36 AM
Arrival City (Airport) San Diego, CA (NKX)
Arrival Time 03/12/2006 01:05 PM
Remaining Flight Time 01:51
Aircraft Type Lockheed Tri-Star (all series)
Current Altitude 37,000 feet
Current Groundspeed 601 mph
Flight Status In Flight

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 1): It is unfortunate to say that a vast number of the cars clogging up the 405 are travelling from San Diego to use LAX. What does that tell you about San Diego?

While I'm sure the number is notable, vast wouldn't be the right word. A majority of 405 traffic is local commuters.

The new Union Station FlyAway bus does give San Diegans an potential new option to get to LAX: Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner. While it was possible before, this makes it easier requiring just a single transfer at Union Station, rather than doing a Surfliner-Red Line-Blue Line-Green Line dance or dealing with local bus routes. Amtrak isn't the quickest way up, so especially in non-rush hours you could probably get there faster by driving, but it's an option nonetheless.

Quoting Coronado990 (Reply 8): Hey, if anybody wants to see what an airliner looks like at Miramar (NKX) there is a ATA L-1011 heading there right now from ANC arrival time is 1:05pm.

   If only I knew a place to photograph at NKX.

...weren't the boundries of the Gadsden purchase a little south of the current US-Mexico border (I know they are in AZ - we should occupy waterfront property on the gulf of california). If so, why doesn't the California National Guard just reclaim the lost territory and build a new airport in Tijuana?

...Just an idea   

Yea, with the expansion of Lindbergh Field, San Diego needs a new airport. I just hope they don't move to a new location becuase the current itself is perfect. Right in the middle of downtown. I highly doubt North Island will be a pending location. We don't need any more traffic crossing the Cornonado Bridge going on base. Miramar could be an option since it's big and they could build a new runway and the terminal on the opposite side from the military side. I've seen several military airports which has an active duty military and commericial passenger services. I'm not talking about the reserve forces, BTW. But, the other locations, such as March AFB, is waaay to far. I'm not flying to San Diego just to see my family and drive a good 2 hours away to home? Screw that.

Kevin

[Edited 2006-03-12 23:01:55]

Quoting Thegooddoctor (Reply 10): ...weren't the boundries of the Gadsden purchase a little south of the current US-Mexico border (I know they are in AZ - we should occupy waterfront property on the gulf of california). If so, why doesn't the California National Guard just reclaim the lost territory and build a new airport in Tijuana?

I always thought the opposite. What a bad ass city Tijuana could have been if they had the port. Or what would really have happened is that San Diego would be in Mexico and Tijuana would have never materialized. I think the location of border definitely favored the U.S. and excluded Mexico from having any kind of decent facility in the northern part of their country. Let's not push it with the airport.

I starting to think we should just shave down Otay Mountain to the 2000' foot level and that should give us a mesa big enough for 3500 acres. The problem with something this massive is I bet that once it gets under way and almost completed, the government will say..."okay, we're done with Miramar now...you can have it".   

Miramar is the only answer, the question is when and how it will eventually happen, it won't be any time soon, one option is to move the Marines to El Toro and convert Miramar to all commercial. This would solve a lot of problems.


SoCal

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 1): although British Airways used to get a fully loaded 777 of the ground to fly SAN-LHR non-stop!

It wasn't fully loaded. That is why the service failed.

Quoting AviationAddict (Reply 5): Would the city ever consider a sort of Japan-like reclaimed land island airport out in the ocean?

That would be an enfironmental disaster

Quoting Socalfive (Reply 13): move the Marines to El Toro

El Toro is closed and will not be reopened. You are right about the need to move to Miramar, however.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 1): There is nothing more amazing that walking through Balboa Park and every few minutes hearing and then seeing a graceful bird gliding majestically in for landing. You can almost reach out and touch the planes. It is also incredibly convenient for those of us in the nearby neighborhoods.

I stayed in the BayView Super8 for a week, the approach path was literally a few blocks over. I also spent a lot of time near the Aerospace museum at Balboa Park

As sad as it would be to see Lindy go, they do need a new one. Remember the PSA crash in the 80s? A crash of that magnitude is almost bound to happen again, whether it be a pilot coming in too low in horrible weather or what not...they need a new one. And there's no room.

[Edited 2006-03-13 02:36:59]

Quoting FlightShadow (Reply 15): Remember the PSA crash in the 80s? A crash of that magnitude is almost bound to happen again, whether it be a pilot coming in too low in horrible weather or what not...they need a new one

Yeah but the PSA crash had nothing to do with Lindburgh itself. That was pilot error by failing to keep visual separation with other traffic and the controller's failure to be certain both pilots were indeed keeping visual.

That same accident could happen over any city in the US under the same circumstances. What has been done to help prevent this from ever occuring again at SAN is the total elimination of light traffic in and out of Lindburgh as the 172 was doing touch and gos and working a traffic pattern when that accident happened. Technology has also come a long way to prevent midairs as well.

Quoting Lostintime (Thread starter): Does San Diego Need A New Airport?

Your title is illogical as it does not take time into consideration. This could have made sense: "When Does San Diego Need A New Airport?[/quote] 

Quote: said the UCSD professor may be correct in assuming residents won't fly more as they earn more

Residents are the majority of those who fly?   I remember two different figures from a few years ago: 1) the city of San Diego has a population on 2.5 million and 2) San Diego welcomes 14 million turists a year. Before I make any assumptions, who flys more, residents or turists?

Expanding an airport as opposed to building a new one can be seen as obviously cheaper when compared to a lack of funding with budget cuts, etc. I suppose people must believe something to make the decisions they make. Like building a new airport for the future is not worth waiting for the airport to get anywhere near full-capacity. Should we wait until the existing airport reaches capacity? SAN has experienced more growth than predicted with trends that points towards an earlier point of an economic capacity maxmium. On the otherhand, we cannot suddenly have the airport ready tomorrow -- that is not how it works -- it may take a decade to go through the politics and environmental issues before work on an airport starts.

Quote: Carson contends the region does not need to spend billions. He said there are ways to hold the lid on operations, even as more people fly in and out of San Diego.

I am not going to assume what this guy's stance on the issue is (as I could be wrong), but if those in bold are his words (or journalists paraphrasing), then he does not know what the deal with SAN is.

...they've been working on this for a while now....there has even been initial looks at a reclaimed airport...but we all know it will never happen...the links below are for the San Diego airport site explaining a lot of issues, the second link is a map of the final 9 possible site locations. they actually narrowed it down a few months ago from 15 i think, thats why i remember this site.

...and yes they need a new airport! aside from the expansion that is needed for the area, there have always been safety concerns from the public about that awesome SD approach...

cheers!

http://www.san.org/authority/assp/index.asp

http://www.san.org/images/assp/FITF_Site%20Locations-Final_V03.PDF

i love flying into lindberg field but it's does seem to be a little overcrowded and only one runway is unacceptable. they will need a need airport sometime in the near future

Quoting SJCRRPAX (Reply 6): I know, San Diego can use the Dallas model, You know, WN gets the good old airport, and all the other suckers get stuck miles out of town!

If they can handle Terrain, Brown is available....   

You can scratch North Island off the list as well:

I recall someone arguring with me about North Island already being "joint use" because of the airspace issue. Here's the proof I was right.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...tro/20060313-9999-1m13airport.html

Military representatives already object to the use of North Island, citing reasons such as base security, pilot safety and the use of live ordnance on some aircraft.

Somone else want to call BS on the military and live ordinance in a major city???? That's always a good idea. Maybe Military airports need to be somewhere else if this is such a safety concern.

If anything, this shows Joint use of Miramar isn't such a problem after all because the same issues that exist already with North Island and SAN woudl simply move to Miramar freeing up North Island.

[Edited 2006-03-13 18:03:14]

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 20): Over 150,000 a year make the drive, another 150 take a turboprop. This number will obviously grow without a solution placign capacity problems on LAX. San Diego has a responsibility to solve it's own problems

I always thought it was more in the 350,000 a year ballpark on the turboprops between SAN and LAX. Doing some quick math with over 50 flights a day and, say 20 people per flight, puts you roughly in that neighborhood. You would have to have a pretty low passenger count to only carry 150,000 passengers a year.

I've also heard that we loose almost 1 million to L.A. from people driving there but that is probably all airports combined. I know that many who reside in North County San Diego consider SNA and LAX to be their airport of choice just as much as SAN.

Sandwiched between cramped SAN & SNA, you would think there would be more service from Palomar Airport (CLD/CRQ) then there currently is. Namely Las Vegas, Sacramento and the Bay Area. I think US Airways would do quite well if they based a few Dash-8s a CLD and covered these markets plus PHX with some frequencies.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 21): Somone else want to call BS on the military and live ordinance in a major city????

AWWWWW, well, well, well, Boeing7E7, here you are claiming expertise on a subject that you have no knowledge of. How can the military effectively operate without having to deal with and TRAIN with ordnance? In addition, most of the ordnance that the military deals with is inert. But that doesn't matter, the military treats all ordnance as live, whether it is or not. Your 2 or 3 years in the Airforce doesn't make you an expert. I just find it interesting how anti-military you are and how much you want the military out and yet you say otherwise until you make comments like this:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 21): Maybe Military airports need to be somewhere else if this is such a safety concern.

You don't even live here to know the type of impact (good I might add, just in case you try to twist my words) the military has. On top of that, why should there be an additional concern here by adding civilian traffic? By the way, I read that article as well that you mentioned. I don't see how that proves your point.

Your one of the types that goes out and campaigns against the military and yet once something happens your the first to cry on why the military hasn't done anything about it.

Quoting Coronado990 (Reply 22): I always thought it was more in the 350,000 a year ballpark on the turboprops between SAN and LAX. Doing some quick math with over 50 flights a day and, say 20 people per flight, puts you roughly in that neighborhood. You would have to have a pretty low passenger count to only carry 150,000 passengers a year.

I stand corrected... That was December only.  

Closer to half a million. Total pax for Skywest and Eagle were 890K which included inbound and outbound. Even more reason.

http://www.san.org/documents/statistics/2005/Dec_05.pdf

[Edited 2006-03-13 18:24:18]

Quoting Phuebner (Reply 23): Your 2 or 3 years in the Airforce doesn't make you an expert.

Retired thank you very much.

Quoting Phuebner (Reply 23): In addition, most of the ordnance that the military deals with is inert. But that doesn't matter, the military treats all ordnance as live, whether it is or not.

So it's not live then? Hmmm... The military said it was. When pointed out the issue was then Helicopters. I really wish the military could make up their mind on their story line.

Quoting Phuebner (Reply 23): You don't even live here to know the type of impact (good I might add, just in case you try to twist my words) the military has. On top of that, why should there be an additional concern here by adding civilian traffic? By the way, I read that article as well that you mentioned. I don't see how that proves your point.

I spent most of my life there, I'm a native and the vast majority of my familiy lives there - four generations worth - and watched an economy collapse because of the military. Perhaps you weren't there for that. Perhaps as a visitor you should be content with the time you have there and be greatful the citizens supported you when you needed it and take that into consideration when the citizens ask you for something in return that has a far greater economic impact than you will ever have on the region.

Quoting Phuebner (Reply 23): I just find it interesting how anti-military you are and how much you want the military out and yet you say otherwise until you make comments like this:

As a retired Military member I find it very disingenuous that they preach fraud, waste and abuse as the gospel, yet they clearly are unable to see such fraud commited in the public about Miramar and it's future use, they waste four airfields by using them inefficiently and abuse their position with the public by not being open and honest. But hey if the Marines are content to occupy a base bought and paid for with bribes by a corrupt politician then so be it I suppose. Such honor and dignity can be found in that.

[Edited 2006-03-13 18:35:02]

Let me add this, I think that Miramar would be a great place for an airport whether we share it with the military or not. I have always thought that San Diego had their head up their ass when they didn't jump on the chance to grab that facility. My issue is this, the military says no, lets stop beating a dead horse and look at other ways to build an airport.

Quoting Phuebner (Reply 26): My issue is this, the military says no, lets stop beating a dead horse and look at other ways to build an airport.

The military doesn't make the decision and the only other "way" outside of Miramar is to contract with a company that failed to show that a floating facility is workable to the Navy. Congress will with a public mandate, make the decision, not the military. It's called PR and the military is playing it to the nth degree.

Devil is in the details my friend.

[Edited 2006-03-13 18:40:31]

At this point in time, it seems that everybody is throwing their hands up in the air and saying that the military facilities are our only options. I know what the auhority has said and they do have other options in their final choices so let's look at those.

Quoting Phuebner (Reply 28): At this point in time, it seems that everybody is throwing their hands up in the air and saying that the military facilities are our only options. I know what the auhority has said and they do have other options in their final choices so let's look at those.

At this point in time, it appears you share the same view of your leaders on this issue that the world should head your every call. Like the offer of land on MCRD that would have added a taxiway on the north side, provided a 25' concrete wall was built along side the runway safety area - not a chance. Or perhaps the act of defiance that took place a few years ago in building a dock off the end of Lindbergh’s runway against the objections of the airport so Marines could fish inside the runway safety area, even though ample space was available in the waterway in a brazen act of "we're in charge here". As far as I'm concerned, the Military can pound sand on this issue. Their arrogance with regard to the airport issue over the years has been completely off the charts and out of line. So, before you make any recommendations on what should or shouldn't be done with regard to San Diego’s airport, perhaps you should keep in mind the arrogance of your leadership with regard to the community.

No one in San Diego should over pay for an airport so you can sit on a beach and have "creature comforts". If you need one so badly, there are serveral miles of Military beach front property at Pendleton and North Island. Go have a blast.

Quoting Phuebner (Reply 28): At this point in time, it seems that everybody is throwing their hands up in the air and saying that the military facilities are our only options. I know what the auhority has said and they do have other options in their final choices so let's look at those.

Okay, today is a good day to put the Campo and Imperial sites to rest. What I am seeing out my back window right now is a mountain range full of snow down to the 3000 foot level. Campo would be in the thick of it I would imagine. Cars were being turned back yesterday. Can you imagine this with the heavier traffic involved with "airport city" up there. No thanks! I don't know anybody in SD that has snow chains. And if Imperial County wants an airport that bad, they can build it themselves. Nobody is stopping them. And pilots...please do not screw up the approach as a go around might take 2 hours.

What a mess. Remember this is all going on while military jets make touch and goes right in the middle of the city.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 29):

Considering the military was here first, they have every right to keep their current property. An example would be me coming to take over your backyard because I said so, not exactly a pleasant thing in your eyes.   

The only other location for the airport would be Brown Field, that is the city's best option as of now.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 31): The only other location for the airport would be Brown Field, that is the city's best option as of now.

I agree, I think Brown Field is an option that should be looked at.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 29): As far as I'm concerned, the Military can pound sand on this issue.

Dude, you sound bitter. Did you retire on your own choice or was it forced upon you?

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 31): Considering the military was here first, they have every right to keep their current property. An example would be me coming to take over your backyard because I said so, not exactly a pleasant thing in your eyes

I hear this a lot. I am curious. Does anyone know why the city of San Diego did not except the $1.00 offer back in 1954? The base sat pretty much idle until the Vietnam War in the early sixties. There must be something more to this as I cannot see how anyone would decline an offer like this. Was there a maintenance and clean-up issue involved? I sure would like to know.

Quoting Coronado990 (Reply 33):

Miramar was originally offered to the city back in the late 40s-early 50s. However, the city stated it was "too far" from downtown, which, back in those days, was true. But when dealing with airports, one must vision what the situation will be 20+ years down the road, which in this case, city officials failed to do so. Thus our current predictament.

Quoting Phuebner (Reply 32): I agree, I think Brown Field is an option that should be looked at.

The only reason they will not choose Brown Field is because its VERY close to the boarder. From what I've heard in the rumor mill is "they" (city officials) virtually make it sound impossible to do so.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 34): Miramar was originally offered to the city back in the late 40s-early 50s. However, the city stated it was "too far" from downtown, which, back in those days, was true. But when dealing with airports, one must vision what the situation will be 20+ years down the road, which in this case, city officials failed to do so. Thus our current predictament.

Regardless of the airport situation, not wanting all that land for $1.00 seems like a waste. Does not matter what you use it for since the city limits goes as far as Rancho Bernardo/Escondido anyway, another 10 miles to the north and would have filled in a gap. Must be something more to this.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 31): The only other location for the airport would be Brown Field, that is the city's best option as of now.

Umm.. Sure... Perhaps the Military will allow the airspace interaction with NOLF and the Environmentalists will allow a mountain with 10 endagered species on it to be removed. Good luck with both. Before either happens the city has to turn the airport over to the airport authority. By law, they are the only ones permitted to operate a commercial airport within the city limits.

Quoting Phuebner (Reply 32): Did you retire on your own choice or was it forced upon you?

Most certainly by choice.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 34): From what I've heard in the rumor mill is "they" (city officials) virtually make it sound impossible to do so.

The terrain makes it impossible. Even if the airport had operational control. it would only be good for cargo which is about 10 flights a day at off peak times. The terrain requires head to head operations for large aircraft. No impact at all on the capacity at SAN so its rather moot.

Quoting Coronado990 (Reply 35): Regardless of the airport situation, not wanting all that land for $1.00 seems like a waste.

This is more or less an urban legend. San Diego couldn't support an airport of that size at the time and the cost of getting there would have made it the highest cost airport in the world. Call it short sightedness, but the reality is Miramar was "way the hell up there" with no road access to support it. Heck, the 805 and I-15 didn't exist then. It was the 163 to the 395, and the I-5 which had about 4 lanes each.

[Edited 2006-03-13 21:16:13]

Quote: The only reason they will not choose Brown Field is because its VERY close to the boarder. From what I've heard in the rumor mill is "they" (city officials) virtually make it sound impossible to do so.

Brown Field was offered to the city as a cargo airport. Residents, fearing the apocalypse - you know, airplanes - protested LOUDLY!! So, the idea that a new cargo airport at Brown Field was killed.

Quote: I know what the auhority has said and they do have other options in their final choices so let's look at those.

Those options are: Campo, Imperial County, an off-shore floating airport, and doing nothing. That's it. There is no land large enough or flat enough in San Diego that could work with the exception of military land.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 37): Brown Field was offered to the city as a cargo airport.

Brown Field was a proposed city/private partnership. It never stood a chance, not only because of the NIMBY's but also because of the technical problems associated with it. At the time, the Environmental issues were not broached, this came with the new Airport Authority study when the 10 endangered species were found. You might, and I mean a very small might be able to do an RNP approach into there with 737's but nothing else. You then have the airspace problems with the supposedly ever so vital to the military but so very rarely used airfield in Ocean Beach.

http://www.san.org/documents/assp/SPC_Brown_Field_101005_v3.pdf

Back to the professor:

The weight-based fee has its origin in concerns that heavier aircraft exacted the most wear and tear on runways, he said, but today's runways are stronger, and weight is not a concern.

I didn't know SAN closed for about 6 weeks to get a "new" and "stronger" runway that he speaks of. Did we here at A-net miss something? Last time I checked it was asphalt over concrete that couldn't be rebuilt, only overlayed.

[Edited 2006-03-13 21:30:06]

Nothing involving removing mountains or putting landfill in the ocean would EVER be approved. And if it was approved, it would be litigated by environmentalists (and others) for the next 100 years. Remember, this is still California.

It sounds like Boeing 7E7 is correct in terms of the most viable options being the joint-use military options on the table. One question: is Montgomery Field any sort of alternative?

Quote: I didn't know SAN closed for about 6 weeks to get a "new" and "stronger" runway that he speaks of. Did we here at A-net miss something? Last time I checked it was asphalt over concrete that couldn't be rebuilt, only overlayed.

SAN airport is closed to take-offs from 11:30 PM to 6:30 AM. Landings are permitted at all hours. Last scheduled flight is an HP/US flight from LAS, landing around 1:30 AM.

However, for a six week period of time several years ago, SAN shut down all operations from 11:30 to 6:30 AM to allow for runway overlay work to be done. The contractor was told he would be fined HEAVILY if the runway was not opened in time for the morning departures - and as I recall, he was never late once.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 36): This is more or less an urban legend.

Please consider this. It is from the following web-site: http://www.miramarairshow.com/miramar_history.htm

In 1947, the Marines moved to El Toro in Orange County, and Miramar was redesignated as a Naval Auxiliary Air Station. In 1954, the Navy offered NAAS Miramar to San Diego for $1 (the offer was refused). Only the western half of Miramar’s facilities were put to use, and the old station literally began to deteriorate, with many buildings sold as scrap.

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 39): is Montgomery Field any sort of alternative?

Not really, it's too locked in to be viable. Not much room for expansion.

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 39): One question: is Montgomery Field any sort of alternative?

It was.. Before Miramar was even a base. It was the first site extending across what is now the 163. It was debated to be used vs. fill in the bay when SAn was converted to Commercial use. It has some "dirt/sink hole" issues if I recall extending into clairemont. While manageable today, the dredging of the bay at the time was a more cost effective option because the military wanted a deeper channel in the bay and was willing to share the cost.

Quoting Coronado990 (Reply 40): Please consider this. It is from the following web-site

Perpetuation of the urban legend.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 41): However, for a six week period of time several years ago, SAN shut down all operations from 11:30 to 6:30 AM to allow for runway overlay work to be done. The contractor was told he would be fined HEAVILY if the runway was not opened in time for the morning departures - and as I recall, he was never late once.

I was being sarcastic. An overlay only lasts about 5 years and only brings a runway back to what it was 5 years prior. My math says this will be occuring again shortly. For the runway this proff claims, SAN would have to shut down completely and they would have to start pouring concrete. SAN has a concrete runway below the asphalt. It began to crack and sink about 30 years ago. Asphalt was the only solution to fix it. It's flexible and the worst material possible to put on top of soaked dredge. The day is coming where moisture will break through on some portion of the Runway at SAN as the concrete continues to sink and shift. It happens on the asphalt taxiways on a regular basis. The cost that would be added to Lindberghs operations from constant landings by 450,000 pound aircraft would be stagering. The surface maintenance would be continuous and off the charts in terms of cost.

[Edited 2006-03-13 22:32:18]

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 44): Perpetuation of the urban legend.

That's a good thing. I was hoping our city wasn't that stupid.

Quoting Coronado990 (Reply 45): That's a good thing. I was hoping our city wasn't that stupid.

Ironically, perpetuation by those opposed.  

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 43): It was.. Before Miramar was even a base. It was the first site extending across what is now the 163. It was debated to be used vs. fill in the bay when SAn was converted to Commercial use. It has some "dirt/sink hole" issues if I recall extending into clairemont.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMYF

I know Runway 28R is only 4577', but it looks like there would be room for extension of that runway. Granted, Montgomery would only ever be viable as a "supplemental" airport, and maybe not even that.

Does its traffic pattern interfere with either Miramar or Lindbergh?

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 47): Does its traffic pattern interfere with either Miramar or Lindbergh?

Miramar, yes. SAN no. Gilespi (sp) yes. The displaced thresholds are due to a long standing noise abatement agreement. The runway itself is 4500', the threshold is displaced 1176'. To expand, you'd have to run across the 163.

http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0602/05401I28R.PDF

There is a what if, with more if's attached to it scenario that would extend the life of SAN, but still not provide an ultimate solution:

1. The city turn over Montgonery and Brown to the airport Authority.
2. An RNP approach constructed into Brown relocating Cargo and Southwest (a hurdle moving them from the city center - hard to imagine this hasn't been broached yet given they account for 30% of the operations at SAN and this would provide them with a stand alone operation free of long term congestion - Islip, Love, Oakland, Baltimore).
3. Montgomery handle all the commuter flights up to 70 seats between SAN and LAX (this may or may not require more runway length). It's more practical to have them at Montgomery vs. Brown due to the nature of service and Montgomery's central proximity within the county.
4. Lindberghs runway extend into the NTC by going through MCRD off the end of the runway to improve landing distance and get an ILS to runway 27. The threshold has to shift about 3,000' - 4,000' to the west (Planes would touch down around Terminal 1).
5. Some modification of Carlsbad to accomodate larger aircraft long term.

But those "what if" options would require:

1. Miramar airspace interaction.
2. NOLF airspace interaction.
3. Halting work in progress and demolition of NTC structures presently slated for public use.
4. Land aquisition from MCRD and a swath of NTC land 1,000' wide running from the end of the runway to Rosecrans to eliminate head to head operations in IFR conditions and support taxiways and a 2,000-2,500' runway extension.
5. Filling in a water inlet or buildign bridges over it.
6. Removal of SAN's curfew to add to daily throughput capacity.
7. Removal of any and all non-terrain obstructions (Trees, buildings, etc.)
8. The act of splitting air service three ways which can be extremely problematic in terms of logistics.

[Edited 2006-03-13 23:29:55]

So the only place to put a new airport (logically) is Miramar, and I don't see that happening any time soon as the military will not allow joint commerical/military for fear of terrorism.

And thanks for the info Boeing7E7, learn something new every day.  

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 48): 2. An RNP approach constructed into Brown relocating Cargo and Southwest (a hurdle moving them from the city center - hard to imagine this hasn't been broached yet given they account for 30% of the operations at SAN and this would provide them with a stand alone operation free of long term congestion - Islip, Love, Oakland, Baltimore). 3. Montgomery handle all the commuter flights up to 70 seats between SAN and LAX (this may or may not require more runway length). It's more practical to have them at Montgomery vs. Brown due to the nature of service and Montgomery's central proximity within the county.

What percentage of aircraft movements currently at SAN make up cargo, general aviation, and commuter planes from LAX? By moving those three elements, would you free up significant space at SAN?