------------------------------------------------------------------
Domnic Fernandes continues (Part III) his reminiscence of
Mapusa of the 1950s
http://www.goanet.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=426
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060330/news_lz1e30carson.html
A new airport?
We can keep Lindbergh Field and make it work
By Richard Carson
March 30, 2006
Lindbergh Field can adequately serve San Diego needs well into the future if
steps are taken to encourage the use of regular jets rather than smaller
regional jets and turbo props to carry the projected increase in future
passengers.
The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority has focused its attention on
two technically feasible alternatives to Lindbergh, one at Campo and the
other in Imperial County, that offer almost unlimited expansion
possibilities. Unfortunately, moving to either of these locations is worse
than any projected problems with keeping Lindbergh. The key to Lindbergh's
continued success lies in how it can be managed for optimal used. Let's
carefully consider the issues at hand.
The main problems with the airport authority's two desert sites are cost and
distance. Put simply, the proposed cost of building an airport at one of
these locations and a maglev train to it works out to more than $20 billion.
No airport with anything approaching this cost has ever been built in the
United States. The airport authority is careful to point out that San Diego
County taxpayers would not pay this amount. Passengers flying into and out
of San Diego, however, would pay a sizable portion of the cost, roughly $100
every time they traveled. Effectively, round-trip ticket prices would
increase from their current average of $250 to $350.
What would San Diegans and San Diego's large tourist industry get from this
40 percent tax on air travel? San Diego already enjoys an enviable domestic
flight schedule in terms of nonstop service and high frequency. Is there
anything more a new airport might provide? The key possibility pointed out
by the airport authority is the likelihood that there would be new nonstop
(as opposed to connecting) service to smaller cities using regional jets as
San Diego's population grows. Places such as Omaha, Neb., and Oklahoma City.
The argument has also been put forth that a new airport's long runways could
be used to launch planes to distant international locations. True enough,
but my analysis shows that except perhaps for a future flight to London,
other transcontinental routes are not likely to be economically viable.
British Airways recent experience in San Diego supports my analysis. It
began nonstop service to London from Lindbergh on a Boeing 777, the current
plane of choice for international flights, but found it not to be
profitable, so the flight was canceled. As San Diego's population expands, a
flight to London should eventually become profitable. However, since the
current number of passengers flying to London is roughly four times that of
other destinations, such as Tokyo, it is unlikely that profitable overseas
service to cities other than London can be mounted in the foreseeable
future.
Yes, there would be more capacity for air cargo at the new airport, but due
to the new airport's location, most air cargo would probably head north to
Los Angeles International and Ontario as much of San Diego's air cargo
currently does, or to the new cargo operation at March Field in Riverside
County, which has enormous room from expansion. In point of fact, the
argument that San Diego's future economy will be crippled by a lack of air
cargo capacity at Lindbergh is an urban myth that has no basis in fact.
If there is not economic disaster looming with respect to ways for San Diego
businesses to ship their air cargo, is there one looming if not all the
passengers who want to fly into San Diego can be accommodated at Lindbergh
as is often claimed?
San Diegans need to scrutinize the premise that Lindbergh cannot handle the
projected number of future passengers. Surprisingly, the airport authority
never considered whether Lindbergh could be managed in such a way as to
accommodate the projected number of future passengers. Rather, it always
envisioned what new facilities would need to be built since it assumed that
the airlines would continue to operate with a large number of small planes
as it had in the past.
Lindbergh can readily accommodate the projected number of passengers in 2030
as long as the average addition to the set of planes flying into San Diego
carries roughly 100 passengers. Is this an impossible thing to achieve? No.
As an example, the most commonly used plane at Lindbergh is a Southwest
Boeing 737, which carries about 100 passengers when it flies 75 percent
full.
The real issue is how to make sure larger planes are used at Lindbergh
rather than having its runway cluttered with the small planes that airlines
will place on many routes to keep increasing the frequency of service. The
answer is surprisingly simple. The airport authority needs to put a price on
Lindbergh's truly scarce resource, the limited number of takeoff and landing
slots available in different time periods, if Lindbergh is to run smoothly.
Is this a radical new idea that has not been carefully thought through? No,
Logan Airport in Boston has been given permission by the FAA and started
pricing slots in different time periods to get the desired number of takeoff
and landings. Charging for slots is the norm at popular European airports
and, as a result, relatively few small planes are used at such airports.
Are there other real options? Miramar looks highly unlikely. The secretary
of the Navy has said no. Miramar is unique in its mission to support
land-carrier operations. Examples of airports with current joint
military-civilian use may not be relevant once one realizes those operations
involve cargo and troop transport planes rather than fighters, and that the
number of military flights at those airports is small relative to what
Miramar now produces.
In contrast, there are various ways to get even more capacity out of
Lindbergh, such as moving general aviation at Lindbergh to nearby Brown,
Gillespie and Montgomery fields (freeing up enough capacity to double
current air cargo operations at Lindbergh), and building more gates and
parking to accommodate the larger number of projected passengers and
improving taxiways to handle more large planes. It may also make sense to
consider adding a second, short runway at Lindbergh to help with managing
air traffic flows if land becomes available in the future, as well as
expanding the existing commercial passenger service at McClelland-Palomar
Field in Carlsbad.
Lindbergh can adequately serve San Diego's needs if a slot-pricing strategy
is used to encourage the use of regular jets rather than the smaller
regional jets and turbo props the airport authority envisions. This would
entail less new service to small cities, but I suspect that for most San
Diegans the convenience and lower cost of tickets at Lindbergh would far
outweigh this "drawback."
The writing is on the wall, the airport authority needs to move away from
seeing its major mission as building a new airport to that of optimally
managing the capacity available at Lindbergh. This is not the time to waste
huge amounts of the public's money on a distant airport when Lindbergh Field
can indeed satisfy San Diego's future needs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Carson is chairman of the Department of Economics at the University of
California San Diego.
====================
The main difference is that Lindbergh airport does not entail a military
presence (except for an adjacent Marine Recruit Depot which is being
considered for shifting/closure). However the Marine Corps Air Station at
Miramar (referred to above) IS a candidate for an alternate airport. It is
interesting that the latter is considered "unique" in its mission to
"support land-carrier operations" just like Dabolim. This also gives the lie
to claims on goanet that joint-use in the US is commonplace.
_____________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list.
Goanet mailing list (Goanet@goanet.org)
