------------------------------------------------------------------ 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)