Originally Posted by Trvlr
(Post 2756065)
Hi everyone,
I just registered here and I've decided to post for the first time. I grew up in San Diego, but currently live in Chicago, where I go to school and will be working for the next few years.
My background is primarily in aviation, but I also have a fairly solid interest in wider transportation issues, as well as urban planning.
If you guys have any questions about (commercial) aviation in San Diego, I can probably answer them. As far as the airport goes, I'm pessimistic for the time being, although I think push will come to shove over the next decade, when the effect of increased traffic will translate into more acute delays and road congestion. In the meantime, the best we can expect is an improvement of terminal facilities, including an expansion of the newest part of Terminal 2. However, SAN has 41 gates now, and will max out--for good--at around 60.
In terms of international air service, SAN has been a victim of its size. Big aircraft such as the 747 and 777 simply can't take off from the airport without taking a weight penalty. I am fairly sure that even British Airways' nonstop 777 service to London had to take a cargo penalty which rendered the flight unprofitable. Lately, there has been very serious talk about Philippine Airlines flying to Manila, via Vancouver. However, I believe Canada and the Philippines need to expand their bilateral air service agreement to allow for more flights in and out of Canada before the airline can start service. If this happens, I think we could see Philippine at SAN within the year. Other than that, I think we will need to wait for Boeing's newest airplane, the medium-sized 787, to enter service with multiple airline before we can expect to be connected the likes of Tokyo and London.
The article by UCSD Steve Erie that someone posted earlier in the thread sums up the central problem with airport planning and, in my opinion, city planning in San Diego. There's a very powerful contingent of people who thinks that if we stop growth altogether, we can regain the sleepy Navy town identity we had back in the 60s and 70s. The reality is that this will never happen--there are simply too many people here. Paradoxically, this policy, embodied by people such as Christine Kehoe (who is purely politically motivated--I actually don't mind Donna Frye if she acts as a development watchdog as opposed to an opponent altogether), will probably contribute to a decline in our quality of life, as corporate flight from the city causes our tax base to decline.
In the meantime, I am very happy with what is going on downtown. I went to Bondi and a few other places when I was back here over spring break, and for the first time I felt that the Gaslamp had moved beyond a conventioneer's playground. I agree, however, that there needs to be a better mix of office & residential development. Indeed, I've always wondered why firms such as Bosa and Irvine don't work together to attract high-value tenants; I'm sure there are at least a few companies out there that would love to house their employees within a 5-minute walk to work.
Thanks everyone,
Trvlr
|