That's what I was thinking. Wow these airports are getting desperate. Awards?! For passenger terminals, now? Oi Vey.
What's next? "Hey, we have clean bathrooms!" "We guarantee no food poisoning in our local eateries!"
LaGuardia Terminal B receives award for best new airport terminal in the world for 2022
- Thread starter y_p_w
- Start date
What's next? "Hey, we have clean bathrooms!" "We guarantee no food poisoning in our local eateries!"
It's bananas how expensive things are today. It's almost like made up numbers, funny money. I don't know if it's just 10 layers of skimming, or complete inefficiency, or no oversight on costs, or what. FIVE BILLION dollars... Not long ago that was an entire state's annual budget.
I recall in college, my college had a modest endowment, I think maybe a few 10s of million dollars. We received a grant, and built a really nice modern brick building, the nicest on campus. I recall it was around $6 million. It was very nice. Fast forward 2-3 decades, they now have a ginormous endowment, and just built a 50 MILLION dollar building on campus. It's so wild to see what things cost anymore. And to extrapolate, what they will cost in another 20 years. It'll cost a zillion dollars to build anything.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Loan your soap box to that dude on the left
Yep. One of my best airport experiences was San Jose. Fabulous.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 5,058
No doubt the smallest airport I've used is Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, CA. There was/is nothing really cool about Yellowknife
The problem with most of the airports in the US is the runways, not the terminals.
The number of runways, the configurations, the length, determine how many takeoffs and landings can be handled every hour. You can improve how many people you get through the terminal, but fundamentally, how many people you get in and out of the airport depends on the runways.
You can upsize the aircraft, to some extent, and that’s up to the airline that is servicing the airport. This is why Boeing built the Max, so that companies could get more people on one airplane, and still fit that airplane at the gate in smaller airports, but that upsizing has limits. Many airports cannot fit larger airplanes. You won’t see anything big at LGA.
O’Hare is a notable exception. $15 billion to rip up and rebuild all the runways. The airport now works a lot better. More takeoffs and landings every hour. They can handle the biggest airplanes.
But many airports in the United States are completely landlocked. Take Newark, for example - Jersey turnpike to the east, rail lines to the west, I-78 to the north. You’re not getting any new concrete in Newark, ever, so fundamentally the number of takeoffs and landings at that airport will never get better.
Because of cost, environmental concerns, people suing over the noise, and other reasons, very few new airports have been built in the last 30 years. Denver international is one of the few airports that we’ve actually built in the last few decades. It works really well, including in bad weather, because it was designed and laid out for efficiency, instead of being on the edge of a city, that then encroached and constrained the size.
Six long runways, sufficiently spaced out for simultaneous approaches in bad weather. Ramp space to handle cleaning off snow and ice. Best running airport in the country.
But that success can only be equaled by building airports from scratch. Most airports have been around for a long time, and their size and efficiency is constrained by what happened around them since they were built.
Laguardia made perfect sense in the 1930s, when passenger Aviation was largely flying boats. Pan Am needed water for their Clipper Ships to do takeoffs and landings. So, LaGuardia, Boston, San Francisco, these all made perfect sense. Then the jet age came along, and the runways had to be expanded into the various bays, and Boston was moderately successful. San Francisco was successful, although they cannot build again because of environmental constraints, but LaGuardia just required too much work.
La Guardia is stuck with two short intersecting runways. Takeoffs and landings have to be timed because they’re using intersecting runways, so that limits the number of movements per hour. On windy days, the crosswind limit for small aircraft, like the regional jets, precludes the use of one of the runways, and LaGuardia turns into a traffic nightmare because they can only use one runway.
TL;DR - LGA will never get better operationally because the runways themselves cannot be improved.
The number of runways, the configurations, the length, determine how many takeoffs and landings can be handled every hour. You can improve how many people you get through the terminal, but fundamentally, how many people you get in and out of the airport depends on the runways.
You can upsize the aircraft, to some extent, and that’s up to the airline that is servicing the airport. This is why Boeing built the Max, so that companies could get more people on one airplane, and still fit that airplane at the gate in smaller airports, but that upsizing has limits. Many airports cannot fit larger airplanes. You won’t see anything big at LGA.
O’Hare is a notable exception. $15 billion to rip up and rebuild all the runways. The airport now works a lot better. More takeoffs and landings every hour. They can handle the biggest airplanes.
But many airports in the United States are completely landlocked. Take Newark, for example - Jersey turnpike to the east, rail lines to the west, I-78 to the north. You’re not getting any new concrete in Newark, ever, so fundamentally the number of takeoffs and landings at that airport will never get better.
Because of cost, environmental concerns, people suing over the noise, and other reasons, very few new airports have been built in the last 30 years. Denver international is one of the few airports that we’ve actually built in the last few decades. It works really well, including in bad weather, because it was designed and laid out for efficiency, instead of being on the edge of a city, that then encroached and constrained the size.
Six long runways, sufficiently spaced out for simultaneous approaches in bad weather. Ramp space to handle cleaning off snow and ice. Best running airport in the country.
But that success can only be equaled by building airports from scratch. Most airports have been around for a long time, and their size and efficiency is constrained by what happened around them since they were built.
Laguardia made perfect sense in the 1930s, when passenger Aviation was largely flying boats. Pan Am needed water for their Clipper Ships to do takeoffs and landings. So, LaGuardia, Boston, San Francisco, these all made perfect sense. Then the jet age came along, and the runways had to be expanded into the various bays, and Boston was moderately successful. San Francisco was successful, although they cannot build again because of environmental constraints, but LaGuardia just required too much work.
La Guardia is stuck with two short intersecting runways. Takeoffs and landings have to be timed because they’re using intersecting runways, so that limits the number of movements per hour. On windy days, the crosswind limit for small aircraft, like the regional jets, precludes the use of one of the runways, and LaGuardia turns into a traffic nightmare because they can only use one runway.
TL;DR - LGA will never get better operationally because the runways themselves cannot be improved.
There’s been talk about modifying SFO’s runways for years. San Francisco Bay was built on tons of infill. SFO and OAK were built with a lot of infill. Berkeley Marina, Emeryville, Treasure Island, Alameda, and and San Francisco were partially (or even all) built on infill. I personally see these perfect edges along with all the concrete infill. The only way they’re ever going to get SFO runway relocation approval is with a swap. There’s been talk about maybe trading some salt ponds and turning them into wetlands as a trade to allow the construction of new infill, but the owner says it’s never going to happen. This article is from 2000:
SFO makes push for expansion shortcut
[...] environmentalists and some legislators warn that the vote on the bill, which was...
I’ve heard of various proposals to space the runways at SFO. Like this one:
But I prefer smaller airports, but it’s primarily price that drives me. I prefer OAK or SJC to SFO. But then again, they get a fraction of the traffic of SFO and the price might be better at SFO.
That proposal makes sense and has been around for decades. It would help. It’s been blocked every time because of environmental lawsuits. I’ll retire and it will still be a proposal.There’s been talk about modifying SFO’s runways for years. San Francisco Bay was built on tons of infill. SFO and OAK were built with a lot of infill. Berkeley Marina, Emeryville, Treasure Island, Alameda, and and San Francisco were partially (or even all) built on infill. I personally see these perfect edges along with all the concrete infill. The only way they’re ever going to get SFO runway relocation approval is with a swap. There’s been talk about maybe trading some salt ponds and turning them into wetlands as a trade to allow the construction of new infill, but the owner says it’s never going to happen. This article is from 2000:
SFO makes push for expansion shortcut
[...] environmentalists and some legislators warn that the vote on the bill, which was...www.sfgate.com
I’ve heard of various proposals to space the runways at SFO. Like this one:
But I prefer smaller airports, but it’s primarily price that drives me. I prefer OAK or SJC to SFO. But then again, they get a fraction of the traffic of SFO and the price might be better at SFO.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 897
Very well explained and I learned something about the history of LGA.
Up here , the problems are environmental complaints and noise.
Loud trucks on the highway close by are as loud as 787 taking off from my observations or it seems like it ( employee parking lot beside main runway ).
Sure, a lot of this is that everything was already built. There’s zero chance that SNA is ever going get runway lengthening. Then they’ve their noise requirements.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 897
Just looked SNA as we go there but not with the A320.Sure, a lot of this is that everything was already built. There’s zero chance that SNA is ever going get runway lengthening. Then they’ve their noise requirements.
Short, and narrow, runway ( 5700 long, 75 feet wide ).
No min length runway for Airbus but we need a min of 98 feet wide.
Not wide enough ( aircraft certification ).
Should be 150. 2R/20L is 75. I think that’s the one that Harrison Ford missed when he landed on a taxiway.
Yeah - I would check again... I've been there in the A320 and the 757. It's 150 foot wide runway. Short, sure, but you just have to land in the first fifteen hundred feet to make it work.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 897
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 897
Wrong runway.
I think the runway length would be an issue on 2RIGHT/20L
Shortest have operated in/out of is 5700, but it’s very rare for me.
Last edited:
GON
$100 Site Donor 2024
Easy fix to SNA. Close it down for commercial traffic.
The "deep pocket" locals that frequent SNA would be forced to LAX, LBG, and ONT. Overnight these opponents of SNA would be proponents.
Of note, SNA gets a daily non-stop from JFK on a three-class airbus flown by AA. To get a three-class flight to SNA means very deep pocket PAX.
The "deep pocket" locals that frequent SNA would be forced to LAX, LBG, and ONT. Overnight these opponents of SNA would be proponents.
Of note, SNA gets a daily non-stop from JFK on a three-class airbus flown by AA. To get a three-class flight to SNA means very deep pocket PAX.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 897
Despite not being as good looking as him, I have not taken off or landed at the wrong runway ( hopefully never will ).Should be 150. 2R/20L is 75. I think that’s the one that Harrison Ford missed when he landed on a taxiway.
Never fly an approach unless backed up with Nav aids ( if available ) to avoid landing on the wrong runway.
When taking off, visually ID the runway or use some other means to make sure lined up on correct runway.
2R/20L do not have IFR approaches, only the longer runway do.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 897
No comment except be very careful, especially at night.
Any time I fly an airport ( LAS happens a lot ) that we can expect the tower to ask if we can sidestep “ last minute” ( stable, already checked landing data ) when close in, I always brief ( cruise ) where the runway is and where the taxiway(s) is to make sure we line up with the runway ( no localizer, RNAV approach only and doing visuals ).
That’s all I have to say about that.
Any time I fly an airport ( LAS happens a lot ) that we can expect the tower to ask if we can sidestep “ last minute” ( stable, already checked landing data ) when close in, I always brief ( cruise ) where the runway is and where the taxiway(s) is to make sure we line up with the runway ( no localizer, RNAV approach only and doing visuals ).
That’s all I have to say about that.
Last edited:
I think we all know what happened in SFO that night - but I don't blame the crew for acting on the visual illusion, I blame them for not reading the NOTAMs or the ATIS that 28L was closed, and planning appropriately.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2021
- Messages
- 897
Always back up any visual approach with an IFR approach.
Similar threads
