Posts Tagged ‘runways’

What SFO Needs are Longer Runways that are Farther Apart, What SFO is Getting are $7000 Fritz Hansen “Egg” Chairs

Thursday, January 16th, 2014

Look what UAL has in store for you at SFO:

“Comfortable seating options that include the iconic Fritz Hansen “egg” chairs and swivel lounge chairs”

All is forgiven, United, ’cause I’m sitting on one of your “iconic” egg chairs.*

And of course the rest of Terminal 3 will soon be loaded up with every other flavor of the month airport accessory.

But the citizens of San Francisco don’t owe the flying public an assortment of googaws, no no. What the citizens of San Francisco  owe the flying public are longer, better runways that are farther apart from each other, you know, runways that don’t need a special dispensation from the FAA. To wit:

Damn the torpedo fish (or whatever else is down there), full speed ahead (with longer and better runways farther apart)

OK then.

And oh, the concomitant Egg™ Footstool costs thousands of dollars  as well.

Happy Flying!

*If United sprang for leather, then the retail price is $16k each, srsly.

Ever more deets after the jump.

(more…)

Coming & Going at Crowded SFO – Yeah, We Could Separate the Runways to Meet Current Standards, But We Don’t Wanna

Wednesday, October 16th, 2013

Click to expand

SFO experiences delays (known as flow control) in overcast weather when only two of the airport’s four runways can be used at a time because the centerlines of the parallel runways are only 750 feet (230 m) apart. Airport planners have floated proposals to extend the airport’s runways into San Francisco Bay to accommodate arrivals and departures during low visibility. To expand into the bay the airport would be required by law to restore bay land elsewhere in the Bay Area to offset the fill. Such proposals have met resistance from environmental groups, fearing damage to the habitat of animals near the airport, recreational degradation (such as windsurfing) and bay water quality. Such delays (among other reasons) caused some airlines, especially low-cost carriers, to shift service to Oakland and San Jose

Bay Area Airport Capacity Study – Public Hearings Coming to a City Near You

Friday, May 7th, 2010

The Bay Area is running out of airport so a big study is going on to try to see what to do.

Maybe some of our smaller airfields could pick up some of the load, or maybe the military could pitch in, somehow.

Anyway, they’re holding public meetings soon so why don’t you get in on the fun?

 Monday, May 10, 2010, 7 pm – 9 pm
 Community Room
 Municipal Services Center
 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco

 Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 7 pm – 9 pm
 First Floor, Multipurpose Room
 675 Texas Street, Fairfield

 Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 7 pm – 9 pm
 Port of Oakland Exhibit Room
 530 Water Street, Oakland

Are a lot more bigger airplanes in our future? How many 1000-passsenger Airbus A380-1000′s (or more realistically, 900-passenger A380-900′s) will we need?

A watery welcome for a big boy A380-800 (called El Gordo by pilotos) at SFO not too long ago:

At least there’s room for a horseshoe bar in a superjumbo. As seen over the Farallones:

If we can’t have more better runways at sometimes-foggy SFO, then look forward to ever bigger aircraft, for better or worse…

All right, see you there at those meetings.

All the deets, after the jump.

And here’s a comment from knowledgeable ActionNewsSF. (7500 Followers Can’t Be Wrong.)

ActionNewsSF says:
May 7, 2010 at 3:37 pm 

“Interesting topic. After reading this article, I spoke with an “aviation expert”. We both agreed that either Buchanan Field in Concord or the Livermore Airport makes the best sense. We were surprised that the Livermore Airport is not on this map. The challenges for both of these locations would be selling to the residents who live near the airports.

Livermore is a great location due to its proximity to Modesto, Stockton, and Sacramento. An upgrade to Highway 84 and Vasco Road could makes this a very attractive site.

Concord is a good location because it is on a BART line and close to Solano County, Stockton and Sacramento.

Moffett is too close to SFO and SJC.

Byron is too far for 580 and upgrading an airport there means we have to build more freeways and extend BART to the middle of nowhere.

Napa would mean major upgrades to Highways 29, 12, and 37. This airport would really only be able to serve Napa, Solano and possibly Sonoma Counties. There really is no major transit line that serves this area. You know what that means? 30 years after it’s built, we’ll have to spend billions extending BART across the Carquinez Strait and through Vallejo.

Travis AFB in Fairfield is a possibility, but really too far from the Greater Bay Area. Once again, this means major upgrades to an already congested I-80.

Hopefully existing infrastructure and having to deal with the restrictions of nearby residents, something San Jose has to deal with, will be considered. I also hope that any future project will not waste our money, as the MTC did recently by renaming the Translink card.”

  (more…)