Randy wrote on Oct 11, 2006 7:07 AM:For the regional airport authority to select Miramar, when it is an active Federal military base, shows it is out of touch with reality.

Airport selection shenanigans: wrote on Oct 11, 2006 8:41 AM: The airport authority needs a fix alright. They need to be dissolved and a new authority formed. It should take about a year for a new board to select a new site east of the coast and west of I-15. Give me the job and I will have it done in a year. I don't bend to political pressure. People that try it are mine to play with.

Miramar is the Place wrote on Oct 11, 2006 8:59 AM:Miramar is the place for a new airport in San Diego. Plescia is a puppet for the anti-Miramar crowd.

GG wrote on Oct 11, 2006 11:27 AM:We don't need a new airport at all. Lindbergh Field can be extended, the Marines could probably be persuaded to move MCRD to Camp Pendleton. But that wouldn't make all those bayside acres avialable for development, would it? Every airline has told whoever was determining the "{need" that they would not schedule direct international flights from San Diego because there isn't a big enough market. British Airways is a good example. They had a non-stop from here to London for about a year, then dropped it because there weren't enough passengers to make it profitable. This will always be the case here because of our proximity to LA. someone somewhere suggested building a rapid train to LAX and that would be a great idea.

Common Sense wrote on Oct 11, 2006 11:32 AM:Miramar is the Place - is correct. not only is Miramar the most practical place for a new airport, but Plescia appears to have an agenda that is not focused on the people of the ENTIRE county. Randy's dose of reality tastes bitter. A reality check there, would be that most of us in the county want a central airport that is not rediculous in cost. Miramr is not only in the middle of the county, but already has the infrastructure to support it.

WF wrote on Oct 11, 2006 1:30 PM:Thanks GG,you hit the nail squarely. If the residents think the air traffic around Miramar is bad now, wait until the big jets fly directly over La Jolla considere that they don't, not that theycan't, make a steep climb or make a sharp right turn -- creature comfort and passenger safety come first. Can Lindberg be expanded? A sure bet but, it will not happen. If MCRD goes away the land developers will grab it up (another city give away) and, yes more condo$ and commercial development $$--no airport. Stop the BS polital infighting and make some sound decisions for the people of San Diego.

Jim wrote on Oct 11, 2006 3:54 PM:I mostly agree with GG. But the economics of direct international and domestic long haul routes is changing at this moment against your argument. Boeing's new dreamliner is designed precisely to make it cheaper to fly directly into smaller airports like San Diego, and reduce the need to fly hub and spoke patterns through the major airports.

Voice fo Reason wrote on Oct 11, 2006 6:40 PM:Does anyone else find it rather amusing that politicians are upset because the Airport Authority is not "accessible"? Hmmm... What does that mean? Does it mean the Airport Authority in its independence turns a profit and protects its pensions by thumbing their noses at politicians and is willing to say no to developers and the military that make a mess of everything they come into contact with? Out of touch? The only people out of touch are those that bend over backward for the developers, the military industrial complex and politicians who assume they have a role in determining the course of a private sector industry; the airlines. Also, Jim is right about the 787 Dreamliner, 5,500 miles from a 9,200' runway (with no terrain by the way – Lindbergh has about 8,400’ of takeoff heading west due to terrain) with a standard engine thrust option, 7,800' with a high thrust variant (assuming someone buys this option). BA failed because getting to Europe required a 45,000lb cargo penalty at $1.25 a pound. You don't make money that way. The airport Authority asked a simple question and the answer is yes, or no. No sense in giving birth to a cow over it, then again if it passes it essentially tells politicians to poop or get off the pot. If it fails it will certainly be asked again. Expanding into MCRD does not require a vote because it's only an expansion of an existing airport. I asked this question and got a straight forward answer on it. I got the sense it becomes the default solution, and that it won't include a second runway either, but a rather large terminal. Maybe this hearing was simply about two soon to be termed out politicians looking for a new job perhaps by adding elected positions to yet another agency. Politics and air transportation don’t mix.

A voter wrote on Oct 11, 2006 7:02 PM:People are missing the larger issue- this group thinks it can make land-use decisions in our town! They need to be disbanded and/or stripped of this power ASAP! If they are not elected officials in my town they have NO business telling us what we can and cannot use our land for!

Get Real wrote on Oct 11, 2006 9:23 PM:Sorry "A Voter", but an airport operator has an obligation to ensure public safety around airports and has every right to tell you what is and isn't proper use of land around an airport. This is a public safety issue, and by extension an airport efficiency and capacity issue. It doesn't matter if the people are elected or not, they have a moral and ethical obligation to ensure safety of flight in accordance with Federal and State guidelines regarding proper use of land around airports and protect an airports capability and capacity so that you don’t run into endless searches for new airports. If you don't like it, don't build around an airport. Flying over buildings is only safe until someone gets killed, and then everyone points fingers. Look at every airport in the region. Every single one of them has development that depletes their capability. I suppose for some that’s acceptable and at the same time acceptable to complain about the choice of a new airport out of the other side of your mouth. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Protect what airports you have by saying no to development around airports or shut up about having to build a new airport. Your choice.