Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
SANFan
Topic Author
Posts: 5433
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:10 am

SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:35 am

To any of us out here hoping to see something (anything!) happen in San Diego regarding the airport, check out this news release today on the SAN.org site regarding Christine Kehoe's Senate Bill 10:
http://www.san.org/documents/pressre...se%20Unless%20Amended%203-1-07.pdf

Looks like another dose of the same old crap. Bottom line seems to be: let's continue to fight about who's in charge of this mess so nobody has to do anything for a couple more years.

I have a sinking feeling this translates (again) to: Lindbergh Terminal Expansion? -- maybe someday, perhaps, who knows, maybe when someone's in charge and can or will make a decision, but certainly not right now... Future new Airport for San Diego? -- maybe someday, perhaps, who knows, maybe when someone's in charge and can or will make a decision, but certainly not right now...

Sound familiar to any other of you old-timers? to any of you youngsters? I know that if or when I reach the age of 80 in about 25 years, Lindbergh will still be SAN's airport BUT instead of 41 main Terminal gates, there will be a whopping 46 gates to handle the 25M pax using the airport! Hot diggety, don't nobody tell me San Diegans can't get anything done!

In a related rant, I sure enjoy reading on A.net about the new domestic and int'l services many Western cities are gaining, e.g., SFO, PDX, SEA. But hey, wait. SAN has gotten n/s to BLI on a brand new airline (lasted 3 weeks), AirTran new service to ATL (uhhh, seasonal?), Horizon to PDX (replacing AS mainline service...) US n/s to PIT (returning again for the summer only), and yes, WN to RNO (new route 2x/day!) There's also XE which I don't want to demean but these are 50-seaters and the whole operation is loaded with questions; but I am still excited about it and hope all works out.

On the other hand, well, let's see: AC has downgraded their service (no 2nd YVR flight this summer and an E-190 to YYZ all year apparently), AS YVR service has disappeared, HA has cancelled OGG for a couple of months now already, no 2nd flight for the summer from YX (as of now), UA is actually continuing their once-a-week HNL flight - WOW, and there's more but why should I go on?

The "New and Expanded Services for SAN" group working for the Airport Authority has certainly been doing an outstanding job and really earning their money. (I hope they're on a contingency fee basis and get paid only for each new service they secure for the citizens of SD.) And all the new int'l service that's happened lately - well, it's, well, non-existant, that's the only way to describe it! PR, LH, BA, VS, KL, MX, NH, who needs 'em?

Comments anyone?

bb
 
lincoln
Posts: 3133
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:22 pm

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:43 am

"But if we make a decision we might piss someone off! If we don't make a decision, no one can be mad at us." seems to be the prevailing attitude from the folks in San Diego, but hey what do I know

P.s. Have you applied for that CO job yet...? You know I'm not going to stop bugging you... Big grin

Lincoln
CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
 
User avatar
SANFan
Topic Author
Posts: 5433
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:10 am

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:10 pm

Glad you made it back to Hopkins-land!

No I haven't yet but I've sure gotten myself into a rotten mood, haven't I?

Later, dude.

bb
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 3234
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Fri Mar 02, 2007 4:24 pm

The Airport Authority is licking it's wounds and laying low on a new airport after a 63-37% loss at the ballot box in NOV 06.

The NO side used fear tactics and claimed that Miramar just can't be closed or shared due to National security. We're talking about needing the airport in 15-20 years, not tomorrow.

Then there were the traffic fears of running an airport at the convergence of several freeways. The traffic to the current airport already rides on those freeways. And of course the PRO side was being painted as money hungry developers just out to steal a million or two.

The RAA made many mistakes on the presentation of their proposal, including the posting of a runway configuration that would move all Lindbergh operations to Miramar and leave all the Marnie operations there as well. This would have moved Flight Carrier Landing Practice fighters (touch and go pattern) over populated areas on the downwind leg. These aircraft carrier live ordinance and have no noise controls.

The Board has 7 new members of a total of 9. Several are not in favor of a new airport (at least a Miramar). One actually led the NO campaign, then got appointed.

Now SAN is going through a Master Plan that would add 10 gates on the west side of the newest Terminal plus something like 6 or 8 RON parking spaces. This should take the gate count to about the maximum you can need for a single runway. My hope is that the new Board members will not try to level the current terminals and reconstruct new ones on the north side of the airport because its near I-5 and because they believe they have a mandate to expand Lindbergh to its max. You can only do so much with one runway. Dah. Such expenditures could make a move impossible in the future after so much money would be spent.

The Kehoe bill would make require that all board positions be elected officials that would be appointed in some type of regional representation scenario. Just how much time does an elected official have to study these complex issues? The land use planning would move back under SANDAG, which is probably less effective than the UN. Of course SANDAG is run by elected officials that are appointed in some type of regional representation scenario. Sound familiar?
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4711
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:30 pm

The saddest part of all of this has been the public outcry AGAINST any kind of expansion.

"We're not a hub airport, we're never going to be a hub airport, we don't want this expansion, if you want a big airport, go to LAX, and the public has spoken".

I've said it before, I'll say it again - too many people believe deep down in their hearts that tomorrow they will wake up and the military will be back as the number one game in town. All those who are not military or are not at least fourth generation will be required to move away, leaving southern California the isolated utopia they view in their mind.

I even wrote a letter to the editor of the Union-Tribune telling the public that LAX has a master plan and that it can NOT be considered an alternative. From fellow teachers at school, I had two colleagues tell me, "so I read about your support for putting large jetliners directly over my house". Professional educators so blinded by their insanity on this issue that they could not read my letter correctly. I looked them right in the eye and told them, "if you'd bothered to read it CORRECTLY, you would see that my point was NOT advocating anything in San Diego - only that LAX is going to start turning people away very soon". I was absolutely disgusted - not at their point of view, but at their hysteria-clouded lack of judgement.

Admitting that the airport will be insufficient would mean admitting that dream is dead, and too many cannot and will not face the reality that that world is gone and is not returning. But bitching about the good ol' days? Hey, ignoring problems until they get too big to solve is on the San Diego city marquee!!

[Edited 2007-03-02 09:34:15]
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
san747
Posts: 4361
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:03 am

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:19 pm

Quoting SANFan (Thread starter):
In a related rant, I sure enjoy reading on A.net about the new domestic and int'l services many Western cities are gaining, e.g., SFO, PDX, SEA. But hey, wait. SAN has gotten n/s to BLI on a brand new airline (lasted 3 weeks), AirTran new service to ATL (uhhh, seasonal?), Horizon to PDX (replacing AS mainline service...) US n/s to PIT (returning again for the summer only), and yes, WN to RNO (new route 2x/day!) There's also XE which I don't want to demean but these are 50-seaters and the whole operation is loaded with questions; but I am still excited about it and hope all works out.



Quoting SANFan (Thread starter):
The "New and Expanded Services for SAN" group working for the Airport Authority has certainly been doing an outstanding job and really earning their money. (I hope they're on a contingency fee basis and get paid only for each new service they secure for the citizens of SD.) And all the new int'l service that's happened lately - well, it's, well, non-existant, that's the only way to describe it! PR, LH, BA, VS, KL, MX, NH, who needs 'em?

I TOTALLY feel you there... I read all those threads too, but never anything decent about SAN! There was the announcement that PR WANTS to start SAN, but where's the thread saying they're starting on such and such a date?

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 4):
The saddest part of all of this has been the public outcry AGAINST any kind of expansion.

"We're not a hub airport, we're never going to be a hub airport, we don't want this expansion, if you want a big airport, go to LAX, and the public has spoken".

People just don't understand that we can't just keep sending people up to LAX forever. They have their own expansion cap and SAN can and should be able to support its own services. BA should still be flying into SAN. The city should have subsidized the flight, like other cities such as PDX and RDU do with their Europe services. There's no reason San Diego couldn't have done that either.
Scotty doesn't know...
 
User avatar
hawaiian717
Posts: 3488
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:49 am

Quoting San747 (Reply 5):
The city should have subsidized the flight, like other cities such as PDX and RDU do with their Europe services.

No, it shouldn't have. If there was enough demand for the service it would have done well on its own. Obviously it didn't and for now San Diegans heading to London (and Londoners heading to San Diego) will have to settle for a connection. We can barely afford to keep our water pipes from falling apart; we don't need to be subsidizing a route just to say we have it.
 
DCAYOW
Posts: 548
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:24 am

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:02 am

Quoting San747 (Reply 5):
PR WANTS to start SAN, but where's the thread saying they're starting on such and such a date?

The Canada - RP bilateral agreement does not permit any more 5ths between YVR and the USA - they are all fully allocated to current routes. Before they could even think about starting SAN, that agreement must be changed.

Canada is the obstructionist here.
Retorne ao céu...
 
kunta67
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 5:20 pm

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:48 am

I don't live in San Diego so I don't know any of the issues, but wouldn't knocking down the parking structure help out significantly? Wouldn't that allow the planes to use the full length of the runway? I don't know but what's going on down there but to me that makes the most sense.
 
User avatar
hawaiian717
Posts: 3488
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:55 am

Quoting Kunta67 (Reply 8):
I don't live in San Diego so I don't know any of the issues, but wouldn't knocking down the parking structure help out significantly? Wouldn't that allow the planes to use the full length of the runway?

It might help some with runway capability issues, but it wouldn't have any affect on the capacity problems. We're getting close to the point, especially with the planned terminal expansion, where you won't have the capability to handle any more planes on a single runway, regardless of how long it is. Bigger planes might stave off capacity problems a bit longer, but that's something that can't be relied on. After all, the dominant carrier at the airport, with the most flights, is Southwest, and they don't have bigger planes.
 
kunta67
Posts: 85
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 5:20 pm

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:02 am

Quoting Hawaiian717 (Reply 9):
It might help some with runway capability issues, but it wouldn't have any affect on the capacity problems. We're getting close to the point, especially with the planned terminal expansion, where you won't have the capability to handle any more planes on a single runway, regardless of how long it is. Bigger planes might stave off capacity problems a bit longer, but that's something that can't be relied on. After all, the dominant carrier at the airport, with the most flights, is Southwest, and they don't have bigger planes.

ahh, my bad didn't really know that. I guess living in PDX now and being from HNL, runway capacity is never a problem at those 2 airports. I hope there can be some sort of solution in the future. It's funny I can put money on it down the road, the very same people that voted down the new airport proposal are going to be the very same ones that bitch and complain that they have to connect everywhere rather than taking a non-stop flight.
 
irelayer
Posts: 1129
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:36 am

I think in terms of the population of San Diego, those that were there BEFORE the current boom years, would like to keep on believing that San Diego is some tiny backwater cousin of LA. Then again, when the damage this is causing to the local economy is fully realized (in 25 years or so), most of these people will not be around to care. Fact is, there are so many other growing pains in San Diego right now that the airport issue has been largely ignored. Noone sees the impact that the planners see...yet, so why should they worry? Plus, there are an increasingly limited number of airport sites. Miramar would be **perfect** but it is not going to happen. We are not going to get the "perfect site". If we ever do solve this problem, it is going to be a two-airport solution and the other airport is going to be in East County, and it is going to be a less than ideal situation for many, many years. It is just the perfect storm of ignorance right now: very limited options, lots of conflicting agendas, a backward thinking populace of NIMBYs, and lots of misdirected effort.

-IR
 
User avatar
Coronado990
Posts: 1516
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:12 am

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:48 am

Quoting Kunta67 (Reply 10):
It's funny I can put money on it down the road, the very same people that voted down the new airport proposal are going to be the very same ones that bitch and complain that they have to connect everywhere rather than taking a non-stop flight

Voting "no" does not mean we cannot use Miramar if in the future the Marines decide to leave. I say lay low until Bush and his war leave. Then try again a little differently. The current administration currently have other priorities and there is no use trying.

All we need is a one-runway airport, 12,000 foot in length, somewhere in this county that we can have access to and room to expand if needed complimenting Lindbergh Field. Once we get the developers out of the equation, it will probably make more sense to us. Too bad we have already pissed off the military where if we now ask for a couple thousand acres at Camp Pendleton adjacent to Oceanside, it would be out of the question. This should have gone forward regardless of the outcome of Miramar. Locating a descent sized airport between Orange County and San Diego's North County would effectively deploy an airport every 38 miles from LAX to Lindbergh Field (with LGB and TIJ as bonus airports)..

Anyway, we do not need some grandiose mega-airport city. How about something modest that can just launch flights overseas and act as a pressure valve for our beloved Lindbergh Field.
SFO=NoCal LAX=SoCal SAN=LoCal
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Sat Mar 03, 2007 5:17 am

Quoting SANFan (Thread starter):
Looks like another dose of the same old crap. Bottom line seems to be: let's continue to fight about who's in charge of this mess so nobody has to do anything for a couple more years.

That seems to be the idea. People didn't like the message (that Lindbergh isn't going to cut it), so now they want to kill the messenger. Unfortunately, the messenger was dead on and the Hunters (pun intended - Duncan Hunter) are dead wrong.

Quoting SANFan (Thread starter):
I have a sinking feeling this translates (again) to: Lindbergh Terminal Expansion? -- maybe someday, perhaps, who knows, maybe when someone's in charge and can or will make a decision, but certainly not right now... Future new Airport for San Diego? -- maybe someday, perhaps, who knows, maybe when someone's in charge and can or will make a decision, but certainly not right now...

That has to happen anyway. Terminal 1 for example is near the end of it's useful life. Before you can level it, or even consider something on the north side, you have to have a place to move carriers and you have to meet the existing gate shortfall. I was out there couple of weeks ago, what a mess at the end of the day. Held for about 20 minutes waiting for a damn gate.

Quoting SANFan (Thread starter):
Lindbergh will still be SAN's airport BUT instead of 41 main Terminal gates, there will be a whopping 46 gates to handle the 25M pax using the airport! Hot diggety, don't nobody tell me San Diegans can't get anything done!

There will be 51 plus the four commuter gates for a total of 55.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 3):
The RAA made many mistakes on the presentation of their proposal, including the posting of a runway configuration that would move all Lindbergh operations to Miramar and leave all the Marnie operations there as well. This would have moved Flight Carrier Landing Practice fighters (touch and go pattern) over populated areas on the downwind leg. These aircraft carrier live ordinance and have no noise controls.

They presented both with and without fighters. People heard one message... The military's outcry that fighters "MUST" be at Miramar. It's a load of crap, but that’s what people heard, that and "we're at war!!!" (God help us if we still are in 2030). As far as getting the message out, California Law tied the Airport Authority's hands. They can "educate" but they can't "advocate" for a ballot measure. In other words, they can say you need a new airport and why, but they can't define what it is that's on the ballot. Typical California BS if you ask me. Had they been able to advocate, they would have been able to put the technical behind the message effectively and the vote would have been closer for sure. Instead, they have to have a champion to carry the torch and there were no politicians that would do so due to the war so they were left with business leaders who couldn't tell a 777 from a 737. There was no way the ballot measure was going to pass without a politician leading the charge and with a war, that just isn't possible in San Diego. It's too conservative a town.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 3):
This should take the gate count to about the maximum you can need for a single runway.

The maximum is 65.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 3):
My hope is that the new Board members will not try to level the current terminals and reconstruct new ones on the north side of the airport because its near I-5 and because they believe they have a mandate to expand Lindbergh to its max.

If they do, they're the dumbest people on the planet. That's not to say you don't go with a north terminal after you add the 10 planned gates for capacity beyond 2015 with an initial gate reduction on the south side to help it along until a new airport is built. Say 36 ADG-III (737) gates (on the non-historical portions of MCRD) centered on the runway with dual taxiways and direct access from the freeway and a trolley station? Set's Lindbergh up perfectly as a secondary airport, a rather efficient one at that. Then when the Miramar issue comes around again in about 6 or 7 years they can approach it with a much smaller Sea-Tac layout overlaying the existing runways with a slight shift to the north for a 27 vs. 24 heading. Once built you level the south side (circa 2030), then Lindbergh would be able to support about 15 million passengers in a high cycle LCC environment with 450-500k pax a year per gate. Final nail in the coffin to punch out straggling carriers driving them to the new airport, shrink the runway by 1,000' at the east end, 700' at the west end to accommodate a safety area, narrow it to 150' (just right for a 737-700/A-319) and call it a day. Then the village idiots that want to re-develop the bay front (who want the terminals moved right now even though there isn't any room - another fiasco) can have their day in the sun.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 3):
The Kehoe bill would make require that all board positions be elected officials that would be appointed in some type of regional representation scenario.

Talk about ensuring this issue never gets resolved. She also wants to give land use control to SANDAG which is what got San Diego into airport trouble in the first place. How can you protect an airport from encroachment when another agency that bows to the mighty developer never says no?

Quoting San747 (Reply 5):
BA should still be flying into SAN.

Not a chance. They took a massive weight penalty for that operation. Maybe with a high thrust version of the 787 though.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 4):
From fellow teachers at school, I had two colleagues tell me, "so I read about your support for putting large jetliners directly over my house".

I'd have told them they didn't know what the hell they were talking about. A new airport would have meant smaller aircraft. It also woudl have meant the noisey military aircraft woudl be replaced by aircraft 60% quieter. Finally, I'd have said: "Don't quit your day job".

Quoting Hawaiian717 (Reply 6):
We can barely afford to keep our water pipes from falling apart; we don't need to be subsidizing a route just to say we have it.

The airport is a cash cow. Has nothing to do with your pipes. That's a City problem. The Airport Authority is probably the only agency in San Diego with a bank acount that has a substantial amount of money in it.

Quoting Kunta67 (Reply 8):
I don't live in San Diego so I don't know any of the issues, but wouldn't knocking down the parking structure help out significantly? Wouldn't that allow the planes to use the full length of the runway? I don't know but what's going on down there but to me that makes the most sense.

The parking structure isn't the issue. You have to scrape the terrain both east and west of the airport. This is a fairly common misconception. You level the parkign structure, then it's a building. You level the buildings, then it's a tree in Balboa Park. You level that, then it's the Freeway. You level that, then you have to level the hillside. It doesn't affect capacity one way or another. They built the damn thing in a bowl. Even a 10 degree shift north would have been optimum, but then downtown couldn't exist. This is also why they can't squeeze another runway. Bottom line, that airport is f'd.

[Edited 2007-03-02 21:32:28]
 
PanAm747
Posts: 4711
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 4:46 am

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Sat Mar 03, 2007 5:24 am

Quote:
"we're at war!!!" (God help us if we still are in 2030)

Lyndon Johnson declared "war on poverty" in 1965. Since it still exists, 42 years later, we're still at war.

Ronald Reagan declared "war on drugs" in the early 1980's. A quarter of a century later, that war is basically price-support for manufacturers. And yes, we're still at war.

Now comes the "war on terrorism". Any end in sight? Nope. HOWEVER, I bet it will be used as an argument against Miramar for the next couple of generations.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Sat Mar 03, 2007 5:33 am

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 14):
Now comes the "war on terrorism". Any end in sight? Nope. HOWEVER, I bet it will be used as an argument against Miramar for the next couple of generations

Nah.. I dont' think it'll last the next election cycle. Even die hard Republicans like myself are freakin' done with this issue.
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Sat Mar 03, 2007 5:51 am

Quoting Coronado990 (Reply 12):
All we need is a one-runway airport, 12,000 foot in length, somewhere in this county that we can have access to and room to expand if needed complimenting Lindbergh Field.

Two close Parallels (assuming Lindbergh stays). One 10,800 (enough for the 747-8 hot day) and one 8,400 (enough for domestic). 1,000'-1,200' of separation for offset approaches. The goal with the vote was to replace Lindbergh. Now you have to consider the investment to keep it going. If you don't get Miramar in 2013 then it will be 2020 with a 2035 (optomistic) opening and a lot more money spent at Lindbergh, then all bets are off on closing Lindbergh ever. If you overlay the existing Miramar airfield there's no environmental and no-one in the 65 cnel noise contour or departure path using an MD-80, which will be gone by then anyway. This is done by rotating the runways to 9/27 30-degrees north - the environmental was where they proposed the new runways 2,500-feet and 7,800-feet south of Miramars existing runways. You also shift the runways east about 1,500-feet. East-West flow at Miramar is available 99.95% of the time, this is why they don't have a precision approach from the west there. IFR is only 2% of the time due to the elevation, CAT 1 is 98% of that so about .04% of the time you're in CAT II or lower, 1.96% in CAT I and 98% in VFR/Marginal (reduced visibility/visual separation - Offset approaches). That would support about 80 gates and 32 million passengers.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10898
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:05 am

Quoting Coronado990 (Reply 12):

Hello Coronado990, always a pleasure readin your posts on the issue. Yes I believe that they were very shortsighted in only looking to site and create a large two runway airport (though will argue that it would be shortsighted to do otherwise). San Diego really just needs a single, long runway, 1,500 acre airport and might have been able to do that. An interesting are that wasn't but had space was the San Pasqual area.

I'll be curious to see what happens over the next twenty years.

Tug
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
san747
Posts: 4361
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:03 am

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:27 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 13):

Not a chance. They took a massive weight penalty for that operation. Maybe with a high thrust version of the 787 though.

Note I said BA SHOULD still be flying into SAN. The traffic was there, obviously they took a pretty good weight penalty, but I'm saying if we had the facilities to get rid of that penalty, BA should still be flying here.
Scotty doesn't know...
 
User avatar
hawaiian717
Posts: 3488
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:36 am

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 13):
The airport is a cash cow. Has nothing to do with your pipes. That's a City problem. The Airport Authority is probably the only agency in San Diego with a bank acount that has a substantial amount of money in it.

The post I was replying to said the city should have subsidized the SAN-LON route. Whether he meant the airport authority I don't know, but as you indicate the rest of the city (e.g. the general fund or whatever) clearly can't afford it. And even if it was the airport authority subsidizing it, I doubt most people wouldn't see the difference anyway and say "why are we subsidizing a foreign airline to fly here when we have to raise our water rates $5/month just to fix the pipes?"

[Edited 2007-03-02 23:38:11]
 
san747
Posts: 4361
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:03 am

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:51 am

Quoting Hawaiian717 (Reply 19):
The post I was replying to said the city should have subsidized the SAN-LON route. Whether he meant the airport authority I don't know, but as you indicate the rest of the city (e.g. the general fund or whatever) clearly can't afford it. And even if it was the airport authority subsidizing it, I doubt most people wouldn't see the difference anyway and say "why are we subsidizing a foreign airline to fly here when we have to raise our water rates $5/month just to fix the pipes?"

Sorry, didn't want to raise anyone's ire... It's just that this whole subject just pisses me off. I love SAN, and I hate to see the direction its going...
Scotty doesn't know...
 
User avatar
SANFan
Topic Author
Posts: 5433
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:10 am

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:06 am

BTW, to update my SAN Air Service rant, another thread is currently discussing new SAN-MCO service from AirTran (a pre-announcement, I hope!) I feel better already.

I know that the new airport thing has been discussed a lot here on this board and this is another good one.

The main reason I brought it up again is simply because it's another perfect case of putting everything off (as was well-mentioned by many of us.)

I'm actually much more concerned right now about near-term Lindbergh expansion. There are plans (at least 2 alternatives) to add gates; this needs to happen SOON, now, not 5-10 years from now. Sure, it will get us closer, faster to the max size and number of operations that our single runway can support. Regardless, we need gates NOW and I can't stand the fact that, while we screw around with WHO'S IN CHARGE, the expansion plans sit on a desk somewhere, the 'dozers and tractors aren't running, AND, incidentally, the $$$$$ get higher.

But most importantly, we have airlines wanting to start service at Lindbergh (maybe this year?) and we have very few, if any, gates available. If US wants to turn SAN into a focus city but needs a few more gates to do so, where do we put them? If UA wants to add wide-body service, where do we fit them in? AirTran is now up to at least 4 flights and they haven't even started yet. (And I have seen not one word where they will live at the airport.) Suppose Virgin America finally gets certified. We know they plan on serving SAN if and when. Even the CT is now going to be fuller since XJT will be flying 18 new daily flights by June!

Heaven forbid PR and LH should show up at the front door this month and say, "We're ready to start in June. Where will our counter be and what gate do we use?" How about our friends at WN that still include SAN in it's elite Top-Ten Stations list; what if, oh I don't know, they want to keep growing at Lindbergh! We just tell them, "Sorry, there's no more room. Maybe you can check back with us in 2013 and we can give you another gate then?"

And, perhaps most importantly, what about those beautiful 787s that start flying next year. You know, the ones that are perfect for our situation here in the BOWL that we call Lindbergh Field with that 9k' long runway running through it. You know, the planes that could very well allow Continental, ANA, Northwest, British, and ??? to finally fly profitably to other continents from our funny little airport. Why isn't the Airport Authority (or whomever!) getting ready right now, this minute to provide gate space and other facilities suitable in case, shock, maybe 2 or even 3 of these birds should have to be at the terminal at the same time! Do they have a calendar in their office? Do they realize how soon next year is?

I can just see NW coming to Lindbergh management and announcing daily 787 service to Narita with a ground time from 13:45 to 15:30. "Oh I'm sorry Mr. NW, but the Brits were in just last week and they need the one-and-only 787-capable gate between 14:45 and 17:00. Sorry."

I want to be at the meeting when the Authority tells citizens that they've gotten offers from 3 different foreign flags to start service here with their brand new 787s (since SAN is the largest US market without n/s intercontinental service, 522 pax per day fly from SAN to Europe and 253 a day fly to Asia) but they had to turn some of them down since we don't yet have the terminal facilities to handle "all those big airplanes."

I need to go breath into a paper bag a few times now. Thanks for listening...

bb
 
Boeing7E7
Posts: 5512
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:34 pm

Quoting Tugger (Reply 17):
San Diego really just needs a single, long runway, 1,500 acre airport and might have been able to do that.

That only supports 26 Million pax with acceptable delay, beyond that you have a mess. You need to support at least 45 million long term. The airport layout with two independent runways would have supported 52 million, and had a target open capacity of 30 million. A close parallel supports about 32 million. Lindbergh is overburdened with 17 million passengers as it is due to it's technical limitations. San Diego isn't going to be a widebody jaugernaught like Gatwick with massive amounts of long haul international service so your pax/gate figure is lower. A single runway also doesn't offer any redundancy.

Lindbergh with 36 gates - 15-16 million
Miramar with close parallels - 32-33 million
Market Net: 47-48 million

People say San Diego isn't a hub. That a load of BS, its every bit a hub as any other major city, it just takes 13 carriers to develop the route structure. Add international service and away you go.
 
User avatar
SANFan
Topic Author
Posts: 5433
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:10 am

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Sat Mar 03, 2007 5:42 pm

Hey '7E7, in consideration of my rant above (or despite it) do you know if it would be possible, with the current terminal layout at Lindbergh, to actually handle multiple 787s? That includes, of course, the FIS facilities at gates 20/21; is there any possible way to unload 2 arriving intl wide-bodies simultaneously? Maybe SAN is not as incapable as I think. It just seemed to me that when Speedbird was in, things were pretty full in the gates-19-20-21-22 area...

Thanks for any info you can provide.

bb
 
DCAYOW
Posts: 548
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:24 am

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:35 am

Quoting SANFan (Reply 23):
is there any possible way to unload 2 arriving intl wide-bodies simultaneously?

Yes, but to get two widebodies on the FIS, you impact the middle gate.
Retorne ao céu...
 
User avatar
Coronado990
Posts: 1516
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:12 am

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:15 am

Quoting DCAYOW (Reply 24):
Yes, but to get two widebodies on the FIS, you impact the middle gate.

With the current set up, I would imagine that there can be three (3) narrow body international flights that RON departing before 9:00am (currently AM has 2 RON's for the most part). Then from 9:00am-1:00pm, the FIS area can handle two wide bodies from Asia and 1:00pm-6:00pm can be the European time slot handling two wide bodies from that direction. After 6:00pm the RON's start coming in.

So I can see no more than 7 international flights without having to get too creative squeezing things in. But...hey...I'll take those meager seven flights anyday brothers and sisters!!!!
SFO=NoCal LAX=SoCal SAN=LoCal
 
Trvlr
Posts: 4251
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2000 9:58 am

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:27 am

The official airport authority spiel is that the FIS can handle two 747-sized aircraft simultaneously, or 3 757-sized aircraft simultaneously.

Despite the (probable?) shorter wingspan of the 787 vs. the 747, I doubt that two parked 787s will allow any usage of the third gate at the FIS, even by an RJ.

Aaron G.
 
User avatar
hawaiian717
Posts: 3488
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

RE: SAN Airport Authority -- The Latest

Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:39 pm

RONs can (and are) moved, so you can serve multiple RONs every evening and morning from a single gate. Aloha for example seems to usually arrive and depart from 22, then they push it over to 19 to park overnight. Plenty of other planes get moved too, if you get in late or leave early you see Hawaiian for example parked on the north side of the runway.

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