Talk:San Diego International Airport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject California / Southern California (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Southern California task force (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject San Diego (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject San Diego, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to San Diego and San Diego County on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Aviation / Airports (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the airport project.

Sources for relocation proposal content[edit]

  • Press release from Congressman Bob Filner, September 25, 2003

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca51_filner/20030925airport.html

  • "Filner keeps Imperial County on list of possible airport sites: Desert location still a long shot"

Jeff Ristine, San Diego Union Tribune, May 3, 2005.

  • Float Incorporated: Floating Ocean Real Estate

http://www.floatinc.com/Floatport.html

Tobycat 20:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't there also a proposal at one point to make Mirimar a dual-purpose airport?

Also, someone should add some text discussing the fact that the landing approach to SAN is one of the most challenging because of the rather steep glideslope, built-up downtown, and relatively short runways.

Nsayer 22:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

There was a proposal in the early 1980s to have a joint use airport with Tijuana, Mexico. The proposed project was dubbed "Twin-Ports." There would have been an airport built along the border connected by taxiways to Tijuana's existing General Abelardo L. Rodríguez International Airport. The proposal was given some serious consideration, however due to the problems with illegal human and drug trafficking through the border, the idea was scrapped. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trewells (talkcontribs) 12:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC-7)


The issue of replacing or relocating SAN will be debated until the end of time. The terrain and lack of land available makes this a moot point. Unlike cities that are located inland, it is impossible to go west because of the ocean, improbable to go south because of the mountains on approach (Brown Field in the South Bay was looked at), improbable to go east because of mountains and/or desert and improbable to go north due to lack of available land. SAN will forever be the airport for San Diego and it will always lack the ability to have regular intercontinental service because weight restrictions and noise restrictions. San Diego would be an ideal city for an alternative point for Asian service but it will never happen because of SAN's size. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trewells (talkcontribs) 13:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC-7)


I understood Gatwick (UK) to be the world's busiest single-runway airport. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.52.215.232 (talkcontribs) 17:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC-7)

Gatwick has two runways:

http://gc.kls2.com/airport/LGW

Location City: London, Surrey, England, United Kingdom Name: Gatwick ICAO / IATA: EGKK / LGW

Details Type: Airport (Aerodrome, Airfield) Latitude: 51°08'53"N (51.148056) Longitude: 0°11'25"W (-0.190278) Datum: WGS 1984 Elevation: 202 ft (62 m) Timezone: UTC+0 (DST+1) Runways: 2 Longest: 10364 × 148 ft (3159 × 45 m) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.3.201.43 (talkcontribs) 09:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC-8)

Message to IP address 71.136.142.2[edit]

This message is for the poster with IP address 71.136.142.2. Please adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policies with respect to your edits about Miramar dual use. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a place for future speculation and opinion, and it is certainly not a place to further agendas. That said, please restrict your additions to this section to facts. Thank you.

--IRelayer 19:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Storage Area Network is 10**6 times more important[edit]

SAN technology is used in millions of offices and companies AROUND THE WORLD! The obscure aviators-only code of a second-tier US domestic airport does not hold a candle to it in importance. SAN should point to Storage Area network, because this is en.wikipedia.org, not us.wikipedia.org! 195.70.32.136 17:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

SAN is not an "obscure, aviators-only code" - frequent travelers around the world know and use three-letter IATA airport codes to refer to cities and airports. A Google search for SAN reveals that San Diego International Airport is the first search result. Primary topic disambiguation is clearly called for in this case. FCYTravis 23:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The airport code SAN was used before a Storage Area Network was even thought of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.234.2 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of "Relocation proposals" section[edit]

The "Relocation proposals" section of this article, in particular the first paragraph, seems rather biased towards making a pro-new airport argument. Sources for various claims such as capacity need to be cited, and I'm not sure how "To claim otherwise is absurd" can pass for non-neutral. Tagged for POV check. -- Hawaiian717 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. It was atrocious. I removed the worst of the opinionated language and authoritative predictions of the future. The section now needs references. I removed the POV tag and replaced with with an "unreferenced" tag. Hopefully you will agree this is a step in the right direction. I'll try to help with the references when I have more time. Johntex\talk 02:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It looks much better, thanks. I'll also look and try to dig up some references. -- Hawaiian717 04:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Capacity References:

http://www.san.org/documents/planning/airport_planning/SDBoard_Meeting_FINAL_060704v6.pps

http://www.san.org/documents/planning/airport_planning/SAN_Aviation_Activity_Forecasts_June_04.pdf

Full Relocation Study Data:

http://www.san.org/airport_authority/archives/index.asp


Reference Floating Airport: There is no proof of such "public" interest, only that of a handful of nut jobs who offer no proof that the concept would work and are now trying to push the idea. It was fully rejected by the Airport Authroity on merits so unless they plan on building it themselves, it's not happening as the Airport Authrity is the controlling agency. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.3.201.43 (talkcontribs) 10:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC-8)


Single runway airport[edit]

London Gatwick has 2 runways, according to London Gatwick Airport--Arado 09:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The second is a standby runway, only in use if first is not available for use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljuno411 (talkcontribs) 06:49, 18 July 2008
Still one more than SAN.173.30.145.40 (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Virgin Atlantic Service[edit]

Are we absolutly sure that Virgin Atlantic Airways will start service to San Diego in 2008. All of their aircraft are long haul wide-body aircraft and the largest plane that I know of that can land and stop at SAN effectively is the Boeing 767. Other planes however can land, but must come in at the lowest manuverable speed. So all I'm saying is, would Virgin Atlantic be able to service this airport? And London Gatwick has a maintenence runway for backup if there is an accident on the main runway. 76.88.107.42 23:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No. I've tagged both Virgin Atlantic and Virgin America as needing citations. As far as larger aircraft go, the problem I've usually heard is more of an issue of being able to take off with a sufficient payload to actually make money on a long haul flight. FedEx regularly uses the DC-10 into SAN, and British Airways used to use the 747-400 (flying to and from Phoenix) and the 777-200 (nonstop to and from London; initially Gatwick and later Heathrow) into SAN. -- Hawaiian717 00:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Virgin America Service is confirmed as starting 2/12/2008 - I think someone got this confused w/ Virgin Atlantic... a search of the internet returns NO confirmation or rumor of service to KSAN... DELETED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.162.58 (talkcontribs) 16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC-8)

Top 30 Airport/2006 Records[edit]

San Diego made the 2006 list for the top 30 busiest airports in the United States, with a rank of 30. The ranking was determined by the amount of passengers that pass through the airport annually. San Diego International was ranked #1 on the list of the busiest uni-runway airports in the United States. --Press208 00:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is not a blog. While interesting, this info really has no place on this Talk page. Try airliners.net or some other forum. If you do think it's worth inclusion, just add to it to the article in a relevant section.Thedjb 05:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Noise Curfew[edit]

The article claims that arrivals are allowed in the airport at all times. However, I was on a flight that was diverted to Ontario because a delay pushed the landing after 11:30 PM. Can we get claification on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.126.148 (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

From [1]:
Arrivals are permitted twenty-four hours a day, and emergency mercy, and some governmental operations are exempt from the curfew.
It seems to me that when a SAN flight diverts to ONT or another airport it is because the airport has gotten fogged in and is blow the ILS minimums for runway 09. I was on a flight a few years ago that was delayed and landed at SAN around 2:30am. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
US532 lands every morning at 1:13a.m., so indeed, flights come in at all hours. I do believe, however, this is the last (or first) inbound of the day.Thedjb (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Destination Maps[edit]

I don´t know how to edit these but CMH, PIT, and soon CLE have to be removed. More importantly, I think these maps can create confusion between non-stop and direct destinations. For example, MEX is a one-stop (SJD), direct, no-plane-change AM destination. It might lead some readers to believe that it is a non-stop destination due to the way it is shown here. I suggest that we either fix this error (but there may be others like it) or replace the map with one similar to the one on the O'Hare page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.122.249 (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2008

I have made the updates. Sox23 23:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Now, MKE needs to be removed since AirTran has ended service. Thanks. Deus Caritas Est (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Alternate Airport[edit]

I think the wording of this section needs to be changed because it sounds misleading. Tijuana's airport's existence does not depend solely on the lack of international flights from San Diego. Rather, it serves the more than one million people who live there and on the side, it handles many Southern Californians, most of whom are headed to Mexican destinations since the domestic (Mexican) flights offered from TIJ are cheaper and more convenient (non-stop, etc) than international ones departing from the US. Furthermore, I suggest shifting the information about flights to Tokyo and Shanghai to go after the Mexican destinations. Currently, it sounds as if its primary focus is intercontinental flights when in reality it is domestic (Mexican) flights. In fact, part of the reason why Tijuana has intercontinental flights is Mexico City's high altitude which diminishes the performance of aircraft, thus requiring a fuel stop-over on the way to Asia.Deus Caritas Est (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


Why is Tijuana even listed under SAN? It is not an alternate airport to SAN. It's in another country and there is not any sign of a partnership between the organizations that operate the airports. Furthermore, no US carrier is goign to set up shop there creating a secondary market for San Diego. It could be refered to as a nearby commerical airport, but certainly not an alternate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.203.104.162 (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Tijuana International Airport is listed as an alternate because it is right next door. Literally, the airport is right on the border. Easy access for Americans. There are even shuttle bus services running between the US and TIJ. Because of the close proximity to SAN, it can be more of an option for San Diegans than John Wayne Airport in Orange County. Also, information about flights to Narita was changed because this is no longer the case unfortunately, at least on Aeromexico like the article used to mention. Flights to Narita or Shanghai are primarily routed through either Mexico City or Los Angeles (LAX). --Uncle Bex (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

But its not an alternate airport because its in another country. You can't even divert a plane there from SAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.229.128 (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Convair at SAN[edit]

Convair built passenger jets at Lindbergh Field in the 1950s and 1960s. Check Convair 880 and Convair 990. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.151.197 (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Endangered species habitat[edit]

I think it should be noted that Lindbergh Field is the only airport that I know of that sets aside a portion of its infield as a seasonal nesting area for an endangered species called the California Least Tern. 68.111.246.29 (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Information blanking[edit]

I have recently reverted information removal by an IP user. The user did not provide an edit summary for the two edits that were made, and did not give a good reason why the information should be removed. If that IP user would like to discuss improving the article by removing said information I would like to provide this section for that discussion. Thank you. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Low IFR/fog and 9/27 operation[edit]

I've reverted runway usage quite a few times by people who keep quoting that one pilot-column writer in USA Today that SAN goes to east runway in fog. For the record, there is dense fog this morning and SAN is in 9/27 operation until the ceiling goes up to 700 feet or so. If there's any doubt, looking up flight tracks and ATC recordings (publicly available on the internet) for Monday morning, April 26, 2010 will be more reliable than one pilot. HkCaGu (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the last edit. A lot of that information isn´t necesary though a half sentence sumary makes the paragraph stronger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabidoo (talkcontribs) 12:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been in line on the runway with mediocre fog and had them start switching operations. It is actually pretty interesting when they have planes taking off towards and the east, and west, and landing from the east and west. venomgyz (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned up some changes that have taken place and published in the charts.[edit]

Also gave a better explaination of the reverse flow.

SAN is in east to west flow below 2 miles vis for 27. Some carriers will use 27 for departures due to weight penalties while everyone else uses 9 for arrivals and departures. This occurs about 6% fo the time at the airport (one day where the vis was marginal isn't very reliable either). Also cleaned up new approach info, and delcared distance info that was recently published in the charts Ruwnay 9 is now 1,121 feet shorter than runway 27 mathematically, but not physically. Under "Relocation" the sentence stated that the airport claimesd it would reach capacity in 2015-2022. That's not what the source says. What is says is that it will be constrained, meaning congested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.229.128 (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


ILS does not exist for runway 27[edit]

There is no ILS approach from the east. I think this is useful information that should be included on the wiki. This is one of the reasons why during fog conditions they will require reverse operations. In fact, even during bad weather, if you can not spot the runway within a certain threshold a pilot is required to declare a missed approach. You can see the specifications here: http://www.airnav.com/airport/KSAN

venomgyz (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

'World's busiest single-runway airport'. Also - Stansted issue[edit]

This is inaccurate: Gatwick is also single-use and carries nearly twice as many passengers. Equally, when I was checking the CAA Statistics on 2010 airport use I saw that London Stansted (also single-runway) carried 18,562,000 passengers in 2010 Link here- more than the 18.3m quoted for San Diego in this article. Any suggestions on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.17.22 (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2011‎ (UTC)

What you are saying is innacurate. San Diego had 18.9 million passengers in 2010 not 18.3 million. It was listed that San Diego was the second busiest behind Gatwick, which it still is (even though Gatwick technically has two runways) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.234.2 (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

San Diego also has about 40,000 annual operations more than Standsted. In 2010, San Diego had over 190,937 operations where Standsted had 155,140. Therefore, San Diego is busier in terms of operations and passengers than Standsted. http://www.san.org/sdia/at_the_airport/education/airport_statistics.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.234.2 (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Viewing Area[edit]

Removed "viewing area" section. It talked about people viewing planes then went off on a strange tangent about Miramar and the military that made no sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.234.2 (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Climb Gradients[edit]

It appears from the departure proceedure charts that the obstruction issue is improved a slightly. Updated this info. Could be a result of the airport wanting to improve the capability for British Airways that operates with a weight penalty. The 777-200ER has a Max takeoff weight of 656,000-pounds for 5,000 miles but it's limited to about 600k at SAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.206.245 (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)