Las Vegas airport

McClellan–Palomar Airport in north county has one runway 4,897' . The airport was previously served by United Express with these flights being operated by SkyWest Airlines with Embraer EMB-120 Brasilia turboprop aircraft. United Express has now ended their service to the airport as they continue to phase out all of their Embraer EMB-120 Brasilia turboprop aircraft. This is due to the minimal runway length, which can not support any of United Express's current regional jet aircraft.

McClellan–Palomar Airport and Gillespie Field are maintained by the county and are more attractive. Montgomery Field and Brown Field are owned by the City and are considered to be in poor shape.

Quote: DRich

Does Montgomery field north of San Diego have runways long enough to land smaller commercial jets?

I think they could theoretically land turboprops, most of which are being phased out. Neighbors are very resistent to any expansion of the airport, even so that it could better handle corporate jets.

Montgomery Field covers 456 acres and has three runways
5/23 3,400'
10L/28R 4,577'
10R/28L 3,401'




Brown Field which the military gave to the City in 1962 has an 8000' runway, and is often considered one of the most potentially valuable but neglected assets in the county. It is 16.7 air miles from San Diego Lindbergh Field.

The 10 miles radius around Brown Field (but inside the USA) has a total population of 527,456 which is 57% Latino. That's out of a population of over 3 million for the entire county. I doubt that it would be of interest to even Spirit Airlines as it would mean running an operation out of Lindbergh Field as well as Brown Field. But Volaris has an extensive operation in Tijuana, but only one flight from Tijuana to Oakland California. With the bridge opening up in a few weeks, I bet Volaris could run a decent service out of Brown field.

Volaris currently has nonstops to Tijuana from 30 locations Acapulco, Aguascalientes, Cancún, Chihuahua, Ciudad Juárez, Ciudad Obregón, Colima, Culiacán, Durango, Guadalajara, Hermosillo, La Paz, León/El Bajío, Los Mochis, Mazatlán, Mexico City, Monterrey, Morelia,, Oaxaca, Puebla, Puerto Vallarta, Queretaro, San José del Cabo, San Luis Potosí, Tepic, Torreón/Gómez Palacio, Uruapan, Veracruz, Zacatecas

They could draw not only from the population of southern San Diego county, but also as Mexicans fly to TJ from smaller cities, they could cross the bridge to Brown field and fly to other US locations.

Obviously, Volaris is a Mexican airline, so they would either have to have a US division, or I suppose it is possible that some exemption can be made for the border zone.

Quote: Pacomartin

Southwest flies to 96 airports. Now if a significant number of these airports started doing the same thing, it might be a real problem. But if only one does that, then it should be OK.

If one started doing that and succeeded, the rest of the bigger airports would follow suit. Then it would be a real problem.

Also, Southwest doesn't actually need to leave San Diego, just say it would.

Quote:

The biggest problem at San Diego is the desire to operate a tiny plane, often with 30 seats, every 15 or 30 minutes on the 126 mile route to LAX.

That's the market demand we were talking about.

Any thoughts on my daydream twin aisle narrow body (on the random thought thread)? It would be awesome for an all business class configuration, too, at 1-1-1.

Quote: Nareed

Any thoughts on my daydream twin aisle narrow body (on the random thought thread)? It would be awesome for an all business class configuration, too, at 1-1-1.

Well British Airways flagship all business class 32 seat flight from JFK to London City Airport still has eight row of 2-2 seating. Their seats are a whopping 20" wide by 72" in pitch.

So my guess is that it won't happen on a commercial plane. While it does give everyone the feeling of being able to step outside of their seat without climbing over anyone, it is just more wasteful of floor space to be permitted by any commercial airlines.

Quote: Pacomartin

Well British Airways flagship all business class 32 seat flight from JFK to London City Airport still has eight row of 2-2 seating. Their seats are a whopping 20" wide by 72" in pitch.

That was half my inspiration for the low-cost al business model. I've decided it's as insane as it sounds. I love it :)

Quote:

So my guess is that it won't happen on a commercial plane. While it does give everyone the feeling of being able to step outside of their seat without climbing over anyone, it is just more wasteful of floor space to be permitted by any commercial airlines.

Yes! That's what we want on a plane!

I really love the notion of a twin aisle tri-jet configured just like that. Of course it will never happen (but if it does, Boeing should call it B-7JET7 and Airbus the A-3222). Therefore I should write a story about one.

I wonder if the aviation blogs would be interested in a review of a fictional inaugural flight of a fictional plane on a fictional airline? Maybe as an April Fool's gag article? Hmm....

Quote: Nareed

Maybe as an April Fool's gag article? Hmm....

I like this idea, too.

Does anyone know if I can use the real names of businesses and airports in satire? Specifically Boeing, Airbus, JFK, Newark, London City and Orly.

Quote: Nareed

I like this idea, too.

Does anyone know if I can use the real names of businesses and airports in satire? Specifically Boeing, Airbus, JFK, Newark, London City and Orly.

Use of trademarked names in fiction or real life names does not violate intellectual property laws.

If you say that the "Airbus's ultra luxurious business jet with it's 1-1-1 seating was the pinnacle of perfection, but none of the rich pampered passengers would have ever believed they would all die from tainted bleed air, the victims of a corporate cover up" then Airbus has the right to sue you. But not for trademark violation.

Don't turn a trademarked brand name into a verb or a non-proper noun (which lawyers call trademark dilution). In other words, don't have characters "googling their names." When trademarks are diluted too much (like grabbing a Kleenex instead of grabbing a tissue") then people can claim the trademark is no longer valid, and the word has entered the common language. It is difficult to see how you could do that with the names you suggested, but I have wondered how this airline gets away with it, especially since their original jets were all Boeing.


DRAE defines aerobús Calco del ingl. Airbus®, marca reg.
Spanish "calco" translates to English "calque" (noun) "loan translation of a foreign word or phrase," from French calque, literally "a copy," from calquer "to trace by rubbing" (itself borrowed in English 1660s as calk), introduced 16c. from Italian calcare, from Latin calcare "to tread, to press down."

As long as the portrayal is innocuous, and brand names are capitalized and not "genericized," there is no harm and no need for any kind of acknowledgment.

Quote: Pacomartin

Use of trademarked names in fiction or real life names does not violate intellectual property laws.

Great, thanks!

Quote:

If you say that the "Airbus's ultra luxurious business jet with it's 1-1-1 seating was the pinnacle of perfection, but none of the rich pampered passengers would have ever believed they would all die from tainted bleed air, the victims of a corporate cover up" then Airbus has the right to sue you. But not for trademark violation.

Oh, there won't be anything like that. The worst Boeing will be accused of is storing two jets for 30 years.

Quote:

It is difficult to see how you could do that with the names you suggested, but I have wondered how this airline gets away with it, especially since their original jets were all Boeing.

You have to understand where the name comes from. One of the partners in the airline is Enlaces Terrestres Nacionales, which operates a large fleet of mostly luxury buses under the brands ETN and Turistar, i.e. it's a bus company. For an ultra-low cost carrier, the association with buses is supposed to connote economy or low prices. so Aerobus is a play on Autobus, the common formal term for a bus. It's not meant to infringe on Airbus or even to denote it. It's closer in meaning to the failed low cost Skybus in the US.

"Viva" is harder to translate. It means something like "Hurrah for" something or someone. That's how it's used in the film "Viva Las Vegas." But it's also a generic form of approval or enthusiasm for something or someone. If you were cheering your team at a game, you might call out "Viva Los Raiders."

Boeing would be very hard to incorporate as a verb, because of the "ing" ending already present. And some forms of trademark dilution just don't stick for long. When was the last time you heard someone say they needed to Xerox a document?

Quote: Nareed

. For an ultra-low cost carrier, the association with buses is supposed to connote economy or low prices. so Aerobus is a play on Autobus, the common formal term for a bus. It's not meant to infringe on Airbus or even to denote it. It's closer in meaning to the failed low cost Skybus in the US.

Well, Airbus took there name from a common word used by engineers in the 1960's for a plane that was so big that it was like a flying in an bus.

A man born Wilhelm Böing who anglicized his name to William Boeing started Pacific Aero Products Company before WWI. As he called his product a Boeing aircraft, he changed the name to Boeing after he began receiving large orders. They sold two of their first product to New Zealand as mail carriers.

Quote: Pacomartin

Well, Airbus took there name from a common word used by engineers in the 1960's for a plane that was so big that it was like a flying in an bus.

It strikes me as odd, given large planes were common by the time it was formed.

BTW, the first I ever heard of Airbus was in the late 70s when I read a book about the Entebbe rescue. Since it was a Spaniard translation, I thought "Airbus" was what they called a plane. There was just one photo of the plane, and I couldn't tell which type it really was. It was never identified by type (I assume now it was an A-300), it was always just "the airbus" or "the Air France plane."

At the time, the only other twin jet was the 737, and it wasn't as common as it is today. In Mexico you hardly ever saw it. The local airlines used DC-9s and 727s for small planes, B707s and DC-8s for mid-size and DC-10s for wide bodies. I first flew one in 1985, Tel Aviv to LHR, on a British charter airline (long story).

BTW, Airbus, and Boeing, should give official names to all their planes. Boeing does it rarely (ie Jumbo Jet, Dreamliner, Dreamlifter, Sonic Cruiser), and I don't think airbus does it at all.

Naming planes isn't that rare. All military types pretty much have names (ie Hercules, Eagle, Intruder, Corsair, Lightning, Apache, Sky Hawk, Tornado, etc.) The practice seems to have been more common in the past for civilian airliners (ie Comet, Constellation, Tri-Star).

I didn't realize Airbus started with widebodies. The A300 became the world’s first twin-engine widebody jet with its commercial service entry during 1974.

Their first narrowbody flew over 14 years after their first flight of a widebody (22 February 1987 A320 vs 28 October 1972 A300 )