Re: San Mateo Times SFO article, part II

From: Kirk Lindstrom (Kirk_69@ix.netcom.com-DeleteThis)
Date: Sun May 14 2000 - 15:21:04 PDT

Next message: Vladimir Moroz: "Re: mast match"
Previous message: George Haye: "Re: San Mateo Times SFO article, part II"
In reply to: George Haye: "Re: San Mateo Times SFO article, part II"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Message-ID: <391F26D0.6933DEAC@ix.netcom.com-DeleteThis>
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 15:21:04 -0700
From: Kirk Lindstrom <Kirk_69@ix.netcom.com-DeleteThis>
To: wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis
Subject: Re: San Mateo Times SFO article, part II
References: <20000514220108.5550.qmail@hotmail.com-DeleteThis>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Pretty absurd arguments by Wilson...
how often do they have 2 - 747's land at the same time anyway?
If they had that many in the sky, they would not need the extra capacity.

I listened to the KQED show and it seemed to me that SFO is trying to please
United who wants to run many small planes to LA so they can get the high price,
frequent flights market sector served. Fewer flights and larger planes are not
as easy to sell....Perhaps SFO wants to keep United from moving flights to
Oakland and San Jose?

I think there is more to what we are being told.

> Here's another SMC Times article. From today (Sunday). I was stoked when I
> saw it on the newsstand. "no need for new runways" - i like that! Also,
> notice the mention of recreation in the last paragraphs. We're finally
> getting listed as an impact by the media...
> ~George
> ---
>
> Sunday, May 14, 2000 4:11 AM MST
> San Mateo County Times
>
> Airbus: No need for new runways
> Company making world's largest jet says SFO is fine
>
> By Rich Saskal
> STAFF WRITER
>
> S.F. AIRPORT -- Officials at San Francisco International Airport say that
> one of the main benefits of building new runways is accommodating the new
> breed of larger aircraft.
>
> But officials at Europe's Airbus say their new double-decker jumbo jet
> called the A3XX, which will soon be the largest jet in the skies, can take
> off from and land at SFO's current runways without any problem.
>
> "There is nothing an existing runway would have to do to handle the A3XX
> length- and load-wise," said Mary Anne Greczyn, the North American
> spokeswoman for Airbus. "Nothing. Literally nothing."
>
> SFO officials have long cited the "New Large Aircraft" as one of the reasons
> it needs a new runway system that would extend into San Francisco Bay.
>
> Airport spokesman Ron Wilson talks about the "four wins" that would be
> created by the construction of new runways.
>
> Three of them are: reducing delays at SFO, reducing noise and creating "net
> environmental gains" through environmental mitigation projects.
>
> Wilson's other "win" for the runway project is allowing the airport to
> accommodate large new aircraft such as the A3XX.
>
> But, according to Airbus, its plane will land anywhere a 747 can land.
>
> The Boeing 747 jetliner is currently the monster of the skies, and master of
> the runways at the world's major international airports, including SFO.
>
> More than 30 years after entering service, the 747 is still the biggest
> passenger plane around, dominating intercontinental routes such as those
> from Asia to SFO.
>
> But Airbus is close to giving the final go-ahead to the A3XX, which would
> carry 555 passengers in its most common seat arrangement, compared with 416
> for the 747-400, the most current version of Boeing's jumbo.
>
> Greczyn said the new jet would be designed to fit within "80-meter-box"
> guidelines adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization, calling
> for the jet's maximum dimensions in any direction to be no longer than 80
> meters, for ease of airport operations.
>
> At 79.8 meters, the A3XX's 261 foot, 10 inch wingspan barely fits.
>
> SFO's Wilson admits the runways themselves could handle the load of a
> mega-Airbus.
>
> But new runways will be needed for the aircraft, he insists, to preserve the
> traffic flow in and around SFO.
>
> The wingspan of the proposed jet is so wide, Wilson said, that two A3XX's
> couldn't land at the same time on SFO's current parallel runways, which are
> only 750 feet apart.
>
> "We could not land simultaneous aircraft of that size even during good
> weather," Wilson said.
>
> The 747-400's wingspan is 50 feet narrower.
>
> SFO tries to avoid having 747s land side-by-side, Wilson said, but it's not
> forbidden.
>
> The A3XX would also cause problems on the ground, he said, because it is so
> wide that other planes couldn't taxi on parallel taxiways while the Airbus
> jumbo was taxiing.
>
> "It can be done safely, but it would take a lot of coordination to get the
> airplane around the airport," Wilson said.
>
> Of course, a $2.5 billion taxiway would be a hard sell.
>
> Golden, Colo.-based aviation consultant Michael Boyd said the new Airbus
> jumbo jet is no justification for new runways.
>
> In addition, Boyd said, it may be folly to build a larger-than-747 plane in
> the first place.
>
> The real market growth will be in aircraft with 150 seats or fewer, Boyd
> said, and the tens of billions of dollars it will take to develop a new
> mega-jumbo are a huge risk.
>
> That doesn't mean the plane won't be built, because Airbus, a consortium of
> European aerospace companies, can expect development support from the
> European countries where it operates, Boyd said.
>
> The plans of the other major aircraft builder, Boeing, for larger aircraft
> are limited to variations on the existing 747, said spokeswoman Barbara
> Murphy.
>
> Last month, the Middle Eastern carrier Emirates became the first airline to
> officially commit to the A3XX project, pledging to acquire up to 10 of the
> aircraft as soon as the final launch decision is made.
>
> "Airbus, unlike Boeing, doesn't have shareholders to answer to, so they can
> go off on these wild-goose chases," Boyd said.
>
> Boyd makes it clear he believes SFO should still build a new runway system
> to reduce delays.
>
> The existing 750-foot separa- tion is too close to allow simultaneous
> landings during the foggy weather that dogs the Peninsula through much of
> the year, leading to some of the worst delays in the country.
>
> But the reconfigured runway system would require up to two square miles of
> landfill in San Francisco Bay, something environmentalists believe will
> cause major disruptions to bird and marine life, as well as to recreation
> along the San Mateo County bayshore, especially at Coyote Point County
> Recreation Area.
>
> And super-mega-jumbo jets aside, the runway proposal is likely to live or
> die on the question of whether delay reductions are worth the environmental
> tradeoffs.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

-- best regards Kirk Lindstrom Editor: "Kirk's Investing & Personal Finance" @ Suite101.com http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/investing

Join Suite101.com & Win Cash!!! $28,000 Total! http://www.suite101.com/join.cfm/625

Next message: Vladimir Moroz: "Re: mast match"
Previous message: George Haye: "Re: San Mateo Times SFO article, part II"
In reply to: George Haye: "Re: San Mateo Times SFO article, part II"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 27 2002 - 12:24:14 PDT