![]() |
A quick little photoshop I did. I prefer the plateau, like a Vancouver with out the rain. Anything over 700ft at this point would ruin the skyline IMO.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1864/...951abca989.jpgDSC_0145-Edit-Recovered by kevinbeatty, on Flickr https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1900/...15f340fc0f.jpgDSC_0139 by kevinbeatty, on Flickr touching on the airport discussion. I've seen some cities where they built an elevated airport above traffic and waterways, probably the only solution aside from Miramar. But I think by the time the airport is relocated, air travel will have changed to the point runways may no longer be needed or at least shortened (Thinking of the new F22's). A hyperloop from SAN to LAX would benefit the region more imo. San Diego shouldn't compete with LA, rather complement it and tap into LA's international draw. Most people who come to Cali from abroad visit more than just LA. |
^Wow what a cool edit and perspective I think that if we had a tall skyscraper or a few they would look good more in the back rather than just up front like where Horton plaza is but i like out skyline just the way it is :)
|
1 taller tower would certainly make the skyline look weird, but if the limit were higher, we would quickly have multiple new taller towers, which would complement what is already in place. We have so many twins that we could easily have multiple 800-900ft+ towers without a 500ft height limit.
On the airport issue...business travelers who visit SD don't want to pass through LA. Just like San Diegan's don't want to pass through LA. In some cases it could make sense for certain international leisure travelers to pass through LA if they are visiting SoCal as a whole. Business travelers, however, want to come and do a meeting, then leave. Conversely, businesses that would consider locating in San Diego want easy access to the rest of the world. Leisure travelers are great, but business travelers should also be the focus. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Willo', do you have any more information you can share on the latest happenings at Brown Field?
|
Commercial air service at Carlsbad
With this discussion of San Diego's airport, California Pacific Airlines will be starting service to Reno, San Jose, Phoenix, and Las Vegas from Carlsbad this November using Embraer 145 aircraft.
New airline California Pacific ready for West Coast takeoff https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...go/1196107002/ |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Cranky Flier also provided his analysis of this airline. California Pacific Will Fly November 1, But For How Long? https://crankyflier.com/2018/09/10/c...-for-how-long/ |
Quote:
http://www.sandiegometro.com/wp-cont...an-Airpark.jpg I've heard the end result described as being fairly similar to Ontario or San Bernardino airports in concept, although a bit more limited in that the ~8000' runway won't allow 747Fs or 777Fs (before you ask, a runway extension has been proposed and studied. The Navy has expressed concerns that lumbering jumbo jets would interfere with operations at Imperial Beach and arrivals coming into North Island, and the FAA is worried that missed approaches would interfere with arrivals into Lindbergh because they'll have to be rerouted in that direction due to terrain concerns. The option remains open however). Things are progressing slowly atm because the funding is being provided by half a dozen separate companies with sometimes conflicting demands, the city airport div's lack of manpower to devote to the project, and the general environmental/permitting issues with a development of this size. It'll probably happen eventually, but it takes time. |
Why can't Lindbergh Simply add International Flights now?
I'm surprised no one has brought this up. Its not like the airport is at capacity and everyone is saying "we could have better service if we had a big facility at Miramar". So what is keeping us from having a Beijing/Shanghai, Seoul, Hong Kong, etc. flight now?? Our Europe coverage I guess could be a bit better maybe adding a Paris or Amsterdam but as it stands it is decent I suppose.
Its not like all the gates are always full so what gives? Like ATX guy said we are a major destination and the Airport Authority is always reaching out to these foreign airlines saying "hey remember us, we are San Diego please fly here!!" Are they not coming here because we don't have 2 parallel runways? When you look at our terminal layout there are lots of gates after the T2 expansion and more coming with T1. :shrug: **** Example Note: SeaTac according to the count I just did has 78 gates, SAN has 56 (I'm counting all spots where planes can dock, from twin prop stuff for hopping to LAX or Emirates gates flying to Dubai) SeaTac does 2.5 the passenger load SAN does with only 22 more gates so there is room for us to add more International Flights. |
Quote:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1L61JP Additionally, San Diego is a great city, fantastic weather and scenic, but the metro area only has approximately 3.5M residents and San Diego isn't a hub for any airline, whereas LAX, SFO, and Seattle all have significant connecting traffic. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Also, more of the passengers coming to San Diego are probably leisure travelers, making it difficult for airlines to charge the higher fares for nonstop flights that business travelers would pay. |
Quote:
Below are a number of factors...many of which SAN fairs poorly. A relocated airport would solve almost all problems, except feeder traffic, but solving these problems would create the conditions for more feeder traffic. Essentially, a relocated airport could solve virtually every issue. 1. Airport Hours/Curfew (result of location of SAN) 2. Space for overnight aircraft (minimal at SAN) 3. Space for aircraft maintenance (minimal at SAN) 4. Local O&D traffic (not really a problem San Diego is a decent size market) 5. Feeder traffic (feeder traffic supports additional international flights...however not being a hub hurts feeder traffic relative to hub airports) 6. Gates (SAN has a respectable number of gates) 7. Crew bases (SAN is not a hub, so minimal crew bases) 8. Payload capability (certain aircraft like 747/A340, etc are weight restricted out of SAN, meaning they have to carry less people or cargo. This makes routes less profitable and can be the difference between getting or not getting a route) |
Isn't the main factor the size of our runway?
As in 747s and others can't take off with a full passenger and fuel load? |
I think the more modern 747s can takeoff and land safely at SAN. British Airways has flown a few 747s on the LHR-SAN route over the past couple of years.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
787s are almost perfectly sized for KSAN though, and have really been driving the increase in widebody traffic and international flights. |
Quote:
Back in the 90s the flight made a stop in PHX but the new flights from the past few years have not. BA has flown both the 747-400 and the 777-300ER nonstop between SAN and LHR. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 8:06 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.