NASA says it will build quiet supersonic passenger jet

Quote: beachbumbabs

Orange County had a great future as a reliever airport, but noise abatement has been a real joy-killer for the airlines there. They had for many years (and still may have - I retired) the most restrictive and dangerous procedures in the country, as well as only allowing certain airframes to fly there in the first place, and restricting hours of operation for noise, along with reportedly high landing fees compared to other options. But depending on the runway in use, they had to cut power immediately after takeoff and/or make sharp climbing turns to avoid various mansions and geographical features, and the pilots found many things unsafe over the years. It's too bad, really; as Paco said, it was very convenient for many people compared to LAX or even BUR in terms of traffic in the basin.

Last I saw (5 years ago) Alaska AirLInes was still offering flights to Hawaii out of there, but I'm just not current any more.

I think Orange County has the steepest angle of ascent of any airport I have flown out of. I used to fly there once a month many years ago and I was always amazed at the takeoff.

Quote: Pacomartin

You just walk over and get your rental car at John Wayne and the whole thing is very painless. But my colleague said it won't last. Within a few months the flight was cancelled. United still serves Orange County to Newark (the airport's sole flight to the Eastern Time Zone).

I believe there are still flights to Atlanta, Buffalo, and Columbus

Quote: DRich

I think Orange County has the steepest angle of ascent of any airport I have flown out of. I used to fly there once a month many years ago and I was always amazed at the takeoff.

Exactly. Dangerously so. There were some departures where they took a maximum angle of attack the airplane could stand, then were expected to cut power and/or make a sharp turn while the airplane was vulnerable already.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Last I saw (5 years ago) Alaska AirLInes was still offering flights to Hawaii out of there, but I'm just not current any more.

Not any longer. Alaska (not express) goes to Seattle and Portland, and Cabo and PV in Mexico.

Using San Diego as 100% for passenger load, the 12 CA hub airports are ranked
368% LAX Los Angeles
244% SFO San Francisco
100% SAN San Diego
54% OAK Oakland
50% SJC San Jose
49% SNA Santa Ana
47% SMF Sacramento
22% ONT Ontario <=== operated by LAWA that operates LAX
21% BUR Burbank
15% LGB Long Beach
10% PSP Palm Springs
8% FAT Fresno

There was a lot of hope that the smaller airports could take over some of the traffic at the biggest airports. LAWA is the Los Angeles agency that operates ONT, Los Angeles International Airport and Van Nuys Airport. When LAWA took over ONT in 1967, ONT was to be developed as a reliever airport. Instead passenger service plummeted far below OAK, SJC, SNA and SMF.

After 5 years of court battles Los Angeles will transfer ownership of L.A./Ontario International Airport to an airport authority made up of representatives from San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange counties.

Quote: Pacomartin

They are wonderful. For a while United was flying cross country from IAD Washington Dulles to John Wayne, Orange county airport. LAX has 7.5 times the passenger load as Orange county;although they are only 36 air miles apart, Orange County was about an hour closer to our job.

You just walk over and get your rental car at John Wayne and the whole thing is very painless. But my colleague said it won't last. Within a few months the flight was cancelled. United still serves Orange County to Newark (the airport's sole flight to the Eastern Time Zone).

Their problem seems to be they do not work with a hub and spoke system. LUV makes them work, JBLU to a lesser extent. But for a trunk airline it is just a costly diversion. But yeah, small terminal, shorter drive, less crowded. I'll take it if I can, though CA or Long Island are not on my trip list if I can avoid it.

Reliever airports run into many problems, not the least of which is making a connection at the big airport the reliever is relieving.

But, you know, I had a thought on how to move at least 90% of flights from MEX to the US to a reliever airport, namely Toluca: beg the US government to place pre-clearance there.

Think about it. You already need to show up hours in advance of departure for an international flight. Wouldn't it be nice to clear US immigration and customs during that lost chunk of time? That way after you land in America you just collect your bags and go out, without the need to stand in a long immigration line and then a short (usually) customs line.

The chances of that happening are not zero, but they do kind of make the odds of winning the lottery jackpot seventeen consecutive times with all-prime numbers seem gigantic in comparison....

Quote: AZDuffman

Their problem seems to be they do not work with a hub and spoke system. LUV makes them work, JBLU to a lesser extent. But for a trunk airline it is just a costly diversion. But yeah, small terminal, shorter drive, less crowded. I'll take it if I can, though CA or Long Island are not on my trip list if I can avoid it.

It seems very unlikely that the government will permit the big four airlines to reduce to three, but I always imagined the next wave of consolidation would be some kind of agreement between UAL and LUV. UAL makes it's money flying from their 7 hubs internationally and hub to hub. LUV would take care of the feeder system to the hubs. Southwest flies to four of the 7 UAL hubs.

#2 Los Angeles International Airport /LUV
#3 O'Hare International Airport (Chicago)/no LUV
#6 Denver International Airport/no LUV
#7 San Francisco International Airport/LUV
#11 George Bush Intercontinental Airport (Houston)/no LUV
#14 Newark Liberty International Airport/LUV
#23 Washington Dulles International Airport/LUV

The fleets of the two airlines are both 716-719 planes. But I can imagine that United would be better off being invested in Southwest if SW took care of their feeder system. United would still need a smaller narrowbody fleet for hub to hub transfers.

716 Boeing 737 (Southwest)

153 Airbus 320
312 Boeing 737
58 Boeing 757
196 Boeing Widebody
719 Total United

Quote: Pacomartin

It seems very unlikely that the government will permit the big four airlines to reduce to three, but I always imagined the next wave of consolidation would be some kind of agreement between UAL and LUV. UAL makes it's money flying from their 7 hubs internationally and hub to hub. LUV would take care of the feeder system to the hubs. Southwest flies to four of the 7 UAL hubs.

I don't see it either. That LUV does not have hubs is not quite as true as it once was. They IMHO would get little from feeding UAL domestically. However, UAL might consider if they are making so much internationally to make a half-split in operations. A domestic UAL and an international wing. The USA has not had a world-class international carrier since the decline of Pan-AM a generation ago. While that carrier died years before anyone told it they were dead, the market for international flights seems less price-sensitive than domestic service which now is near levels of a Greyhound bus.

If UAL split into two divisions, I could see LUV feeding them for a spiff.

Quote: AZDuffman

I don't see it either.

I went through this calculation about a year ago, and unfortunately I forgot some of the details. About 99% of United domestic seats are going to or leaving one of the 7 United hubs. The remaining 1% is United's promise to leave some flights at Cleveland when they bought out Continental airlines, and strange operations like Honolulu to Guam (also a Continental leftover).

But only 24% of domestic United operations are hub to hub. But if you limit United mainline to about 30 airports, that is over 90% of domestic operations. Instead of flying to 120 airports, I predict that United will fly to about 30 and contract out the feeder operations to a non-competitor in the International operations (like Southwest).

It is similar to what they are doing today with the Express companies, but although these airports have small United operations, they are not so small that they can be handled by the 75 passenger planes that the United Express is limited to by the pilot's union.

Quote: AZDuffman

If UAL split into two divisions, I could see LUV feeding them for a spiff.

I don't think the pilot's union will work with two companies. You may not remember the pilot's strike at American regarding the American and American Eagle.
-------------------

Feel free to disagree with me. I was told on another forum that I was insane, that no major carrier could afford to fly to under a hundred airports. That the cost savings would be minimal and not worth the confusion on the part of the customer.

Of course my counterargument is why do the major carriers lose so much money on domestic operations.

-------------------

Here is a first guess at what would be United's top 30 airports
ORD IAH SFO DEN EWR LAX IAD
BOS LAS MCO SEA SAN HNL LGA PDX CLE PHX AUS
TPA SNA DCA PHL MSY JFK BWI FLL ATL MSP DFW SAT

These would be the airports that United currently flies to (sometimes rarely) that would be subcontracted to an airlines like Southwest.
ABQ ACY ALB ANC BDL BIL BKL BMG BNA BOI BQN BTR BTV BUF BUR BZN CHS CLT CMH COS CVG DAY DSM DTW ELP EUG GEG GRB GRR GTR GUM ICT IDA IND INT ITO JAC JAX KOA LAN LBB LCH LCK LGB LIH LNK MBS MCI MCN MDT MDW MEM MFE MIA MKC MKE MSN OAK OGG OKC OMA ORF PBI PIT PSP PVD RDU RIC RNO ROA ROC RSW SBN SDF SJC SJU SLC SMF SPN SRQ STL STT SWF SWO SYR TUL TUS TYS XNA

Some of these airports are actually quite large, notably DTW MIA OAK SJC SJU , but they are dominated by other airlines.

Quote: Pacomartin

I don't think the pilot's union will work with two companies. You may not remember the pilot's strike at American regarding the American and American Eagle.

Not so much two companies, two divisions. Think Oldsmobile and Buick. The international division would try to be a high-service division and rival international flag carriers. The domestic would give the cheap service Americans have come to accept.

Now I know they tried this domestically with Ted some years back. But Ted competed with the parent and the one time I flew it I did not understand what on earth the difference was. This would try to recreate the high-line Pan-Am idea of the glory days. Private de facto flag carrier.