BUR-JFK, Short Runways = Passenger Cap
Jul 20, 2005, 1:46 pm
#46
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In Transit
Programs: PC Gold; SPG AAA; HiHo Silver; Hrtz Gld; Emld Clb; UA NWA NoBody; VA EleVAte; WN MooMoo
Posts: 1,657
Originally Posted by somedude24
UA's "Economy Plus" on p.s. service is actually the same size as most of the seats on all jetBlue planes.
I guess you learn something new each day.
Jul 21, 2005, 5:30 pm
#48
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In Transit
Programs: PC Gold; SPG AAA; HiHo Silver; Hrtz Gld; Emld Clb; UA NWA NoBody; VA EleVAte; WN MooMoo
Posts: 1,657
Originally Posted by FWAAA
It's 94 degrees in BUR right now. How's that weight restriction to JFK? Any fuel stops?
Aug 5, 2005, 5:27 am
#49
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Northern Virginia
Programs: AA EXP (home of the "Comfort Mileage Run")
Posts: 652
Originally Posted by FWAAA
Even if gate agents somehow loaded too many pax, the pilots always request a count before departure.
Let's hope that there's no Horizontally Challenged People Convention in Burbank with B6 the carrier of choice.
Aug 23, 2005, 11:52 pm
#50
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by dhuey
This gives me a little pause. Is there a significant risk that the pilots, gate agents, etc., forget about the BUR runway limitations and overload the plane? Or is this just so much a part of their everyday jobs that it's not worth pondering?
There are many safety redundancies built in now. I would not worry so much about restrictions at an individual airport...they are a lot more common than you realize! Cheers!
John
Aug 25, 2005, 12:41 am
#51
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: GSP (Greenville, SC)
Programs: DL Gold Medallion; UA Premier Executive; WN sub-CP; AA sub-Gold
Posts: 13,393
Originally Posted by FWAAA
The airport is hemmed in by thoroughfares on all sides, but expansion would be possible, were it not for the political impossibility of expansion.
BUR has been plagued by NIMBYism the likes of which I have never seen anywhere else. When the TSA took over the checkpoints, and hogged all the available space, noisy citizens even protested a minor expansion program to alleviate the overcrowding caused by the TSA space hogging ways. Truly unbelievable opposition to any expansion at BUR.
A couple of years ago, the FAA threatened to sue BUR for the return of $42 million or so of federal funds provided to buy land for a new terminal that the cities of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena have blocked for many, many years. After some delay, I think the FAA settled with the airport for a sizable fraction of the money.
Here's a map of the area around the airport:
http://image.maps.yahoo.com/mapimage...q8vTWOdMUd_MM-
BUR has been plagued by NIMBYism the likes of which I have never seen anywhere else. When the TSA took over the checkpoints, and hogged all the available space, noisy citizens even protested a minor expansion program to alleviate the overcrowding caused by the TSA space hogging ways. Truly unbelievable opposition to any expansion at BUR.
A couple of years ago, the FAA threatened to sue BUR for the return of $42 million or so of federal funds provided to buy land for a new terminal that the cities of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena have blocked for many, many years. After some delay, I think the FAA settled with the airport for a sizable fraction of the money.
Here's a map of the area around the airport:
http://image.maps.yahoo.com/mapimage...q8vTWOdMUd_MM-
Sep 12, 2005, 8:43 am
#52
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Coast
Programs: AA CONCIERGE KEY & 1MM, HILTON DIAMOND
Posts: 11,970
Originally Posted by tdb27
It was my understanding that these seats were being blocked in compliance with a weight restriction at the airport, rather than as a courtesy to families and single travlers. Therefore, while nothing is for certain I would imagine that they would remain open, as JetBlue would not be allowed to violate the restrictions.
Sep 15, 2005, 9:42 pm
#53
Join Date: May 2005
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, WN A-List
Posts: 209
Going by road ...
It's a big deal .. if an engine quits below takeoff safety speed you need to be able to stop. There is no wiggle room at all on this under the regs commercial carriers fly under. Bad news is the distances are established by test pilots in brand new airplanes with perfect brakes and both reversers deploying.
Some bizjets can be a bit more adventurous under part 91.
The RWY15 over-run , the normal BUR departure runway, winds up in a graveyard after a road and railroad tracks... so not a good place to be on a gassed up A320!
I suspect the seats blocked are changed by winds aloft, and BUR temp, humidity and surface winds on day of flight.
Some bizjets can be a bit more adventurous under part 91.
The RWY15 over-run , the normal BUR departure runway, winds up in a graveyard after a road and railroad tracks... so not a good place to be on a gassed up A320!
I suspect the seats blocked are changed by winds aloft, and BUR temp, humidity and surface winds on day of flight.
Originally Posted by FWAAA
I have confidence that pilots are very cognizant of the amount of runway available to them and the maximum safe takeoff weight of their airplane each and every time they fly. No matter the airport. Adherence to safety concerns like this is why they get paid the big bucks.
Even if gate agents somehow loaded too many pax, the pilots always request a count before departure. FSCs who load bags take their jobs very seriously as well to avoid overloading jetliners. I wouldn't worry about it.
Of course, mistakes are occasionally made, like in the failure to properly calculate the amount of fuel on that airplane in/from Canada that ran out of gas and glided to an emergency landing a few years back, but those are very rare incidents.
Even if gate agents somehow loaded too many pax, the pilots always request a count before departure. FSCs who load bags take their jobs very seriously as well to avoid overloading jetliners. I wouldn't worry about it.
Of course, mistakes are occasionally made, like in the failure to properly calculate the amount of fuel on that airplane in/from Canada that ran out of gas and glided to an emergency landing a few years back, but those are very rare incidents.
Nov 8, 2005, 2:12 pm
#54
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Pasadena, Ca. USA
Programs: UA 1P, AA Plat, Hertz 5*, Avis First, SPG Plat, Hyatt Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 326
thats not entrely true, JetBlue only has 34 inch pitch in the rear portion of the A320s. PS economy plus is actually slight less then E+ in other aircraft. Its because of the first and business class configuration in the special ps757 that meant taking about 1 - 2 inches away from E+.
Nov 28, 2005, 9:14 am
#55
Join Date: Apr 2005
Programs: United 2P, AMEX Plat, SPG Gold
Posts: 6
Different runway in BUR?
On flight #292 last night from Burbank to JFK, we had to make the stop in Buffalo to refuel, getting us in 2 hours late. The pilot told us that it was due to high winds in Burbank, which caused them to have to use a shorter than normal runway. He said they had a choice between leaving behind 25-30 people or taking less fuel, and he chose the less fuel route. It was a full flight, and not that warm in BUR (65 or so). Is this a further contingency that B6 has to deal with out of BUR, or was the pilot feeding us a line?
Nov 28, 2005, 10:53 am
#56
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
Originally Posted by perrycampf
On flight #292 last night from Burbank to JFK, we had to make the stop in Buffalo to refuel, getting us in 2 hours late. The pilot told us that it was due to high winds in Burbank, which caused them to have to use a shorter than normal runway. He said they had a choice between leaving behind 25-30 people or taking less fuel, and he chose the less fuel route. It was a full flight, and not that warm in BUR (65 or so). Is this a further contingency that B6 has to deal with out of BUR, or was the pilot feeding us a line?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10218033/
It's cold here today. 36 F in the Valley.
Two hour arrival delays due to fuel stops are no fun, but then again, the 25-30 people who would have been left behind were probably happy to get on board even with the fuel stop delay.
Reminds me of a similar incident on AA. Several months ago, I was in LIM on an AA flight and right after they door closed, the Captain came on the intercom to tell us that we were going to wait for about 25 pax who had been mistakenly left off the airplane by the LIM gate agents. A woman next to me (in F, of course) begins whining to the FA about her tight connection and that she was "very unhappy." On and on she droned.
Once we were airborne, the pilots mentioned how happy the almost left-behind pax were to be able to get on the airplane and that they expected that we would be able to make up most of the delay. Of course, Annoying F Pax started up again with the whining. Finally, I'd heard enough and looked over at her and said "next time, don't book such a tight connection." If dirty looks could kill, FWAAA would be dead.
Nov 28, 2005, 4:07 pm
#57
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: QLA
Programs: SBUX Gold
Posts: 14,507
Originally Posted by FWAAA
If dirty looks could kill, FWAAA would be dead.
Seriously... I still want my idea implemented... the ability for pax to vote a fellow pax off the plane, Survivor style.
The tribe has spoken.
Nov 28, 2005, 10:45 pm
#58
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Los Angeles, CA - Nearly 4 Million Actual Miles Flown
Posts: 5,522
Originally Posted by perrycampf
On flight #292 last night from Burbank to JFK, we had to make the stop in Buffalo to refuel, getting us in 2 hours late. The pilot told us that it was due to high winds in Burbank, which caused them to have to use a shorter than normal runway. He said they had a choice between leaving behind 25-30 people or taking less fuel, and he chose the less fuel route. It was a full flight, and not that warm in BUR (65 or so). Is this a further contingency that B6 has to deal with out of BUR, or was the pilot feeding us a line?
Because BUR has incredibly short runways, and especially because B6 chooses to fly the A319, this is a reality of flying into or out of BUR either during extreme heat or during high winds. However, I would probaly say the percentile of diverted flights out of the 2920 annual flights into AND out of BUR is relatively small.
But this was one line that a pilot delivered I would take as highly credible.
Nov 29, 2005, 8:59 am
#59
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 396
i don't ever remember jetblue having the A319? on a much smaller scale, for every one flight that we hear about the moans and groans of people here complaining about an intermediate fuel stop, think of how many other flights have successfully completed this trip nonstop. i think it outweighs the negativity greatly, and i would think that there are many more just as happy with the thought that jetblue came to burbank and offered a nonstop service to the east coast.
Nov 30, 2005, 2:30 pm
#60
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SNA
Programs: UA 1K, AA Gold, DL Nothing (former long-time Plat)
Posts: 54
Not a B6 flyer, so haven't been on this board much, but did want to clear up one BUR NIMBY issue. Glendale and Pasadena (and their reps on the Airport Authority) have been overwhelmingly in favor of the terminal expansion.
Of course, none of the traffic heads over either city. It's the folks in Burbank and North Hollywood that are affected.
And, like JeffreyT mentions -- it's a tough call. The very things that make BUR a great place to fly out of (no taxi times, tiny terminals, ease of driving in/out, golden age of flight charm) would probably be lost in an expansion.
But, back on thread, seems to me that B6, like most things, has been handling this whole situation rather well.
Of course, none of the traffic heads over either city. It's the folks in Burbank and North Hollywood that are affected.
And, like JeffreyT mentions -- it's a tough call. The very things that make BUR a great place to fly out of (no taxi times, tiny terminals, ease of driving in/out, golden age of flight charm) would probably be lost in an expansion.
But, back on thread, seems to me that B6, like most things, has been handling this whole situation rather well.