Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS28 - El Toro Airport Issues'^ a \aa�0o SaF� I v U.S Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration July 2, 1999 Mr. Alan Murphy Aviation Team Manager MCAS E1 Toro Master Development Program 10 Civic Center Plaza, Second Floor Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Mr. Murphy: Westem•PaCdn) Region P.O. sox 92007 Airports Division wondway Postal Center Los Angeles, CA 90009 Orange County Airport System Master Plan Aviation Demand Forecasts Your letter dated May 20, 1999, requested Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval of the Aviation Demand Forecast for the Orange County Airport System Master Plan. Your submittal included Technical Report 4, dated April 6, 1998, and three sets of revised tables under cover sheets dated June 24, July 21, and October 30, 1998, respectively. We have reviewed the forecasts for the proposed civil airport at Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) E1 Toro, and for John Wayne Airport. The forecasts consider several alternatives. We understand that your preferred alternative is Alternative S. The FAA considers the forecasts to be reasonable. The forecasts are also consistent with related forecasts that have been prepared by others for the regional airport system. The FAA approves your forecasts as the basis for continuing planning activities including Airport Layout Plan (ALP) development; federal environmental analysis; and pertinent data entries in our National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). If you have questions, please contact me at (310) 725 -3613. Sin r ly, Richard P. Dykas Supervisor, Capacity Section cc: USMC BRAC Office (Lt Col Gilhooley) 225 N 175 r 0 IM C d N A d 7 125 C Q C a 7° 25 �— 1970 I I I 1 I I , I 1 � I I I I I - ----- J------ --------- - - - - -- - - -- li. i I 1 /I I I /• I I I - - - - - -- 91.81 , 1 - - - .- - I I I 1 I I I 1 1 II 1 I • 1 1 1980 1990 2000 201U Historic I ASMP Forecast High Range of Alternative Forecasts —•— Low Range of Alternative Forecasts Source: P &D Aviation Year .02.8 78.6 163.0 2020 Figure 3 -2 Air Passenger Demand Forecasts in the Air Service Area, 1970 -2020 3.0 Overview of Forecasts of Aviation Demand and Aviation Facility Requirements 3 -3 Historic — ASMP Forecast High Range of Alternative Forecasts —•— Low Range of Alternative Forecasts Source: P &D Aviation Year 21 Figure 3 -3 Air Cargo Demand Forecasts in the Air Service Area, 1975 -2020 Section 3.0 Overview of Forecasts of Aviation Demand and Aviation Facility Requirements 3 -4 ,4 C %. ° SN ____ ---------------- ----- ° I'- ° - -- - -- - - - j�, a- - -- - - -- - - --------- - - - - -- Historic — ASMP Forecast High Range of Alternative Forecasts —•— Low Range of Alternative Forecasts Source: P &D Aviation Year 21 Figure 3 -3 Air Cargo Demand Forecasts in the Air Service Area, 1975 -2020 Section 3.0 Overview of Forecasts of Aviation Demand and Aviation Facility Requirements 3 -4 4 Airport- WorkirrgGroup of -Orange County, Inc. 8 December, 1999 Mr. Herbert D. Kelleher Chairman, President & C.E.O. Southwest Airlines Box 36611 Love Field Dallas, TX. 75235 -1611 <Dear Mr. Kelleher: On 5 June 1999 Southwest Airlines contracted with the County of Orange along with seven (7) other airlines to fly a series of flights at the MCAS El Toro to provide an opportunity for persons working and living in the vicinity to see and hear actual operations by representative types of commercial aircraft, operating at representative weights, using runways and flight tracks in a manner consistent with the analysis that has been completed to date in the planning process for El Toro. Runways 34 and 07, which Southwest Airlines used for this demonstration, has been challenged by some parties as unsafe for commercial operation. By what criteria did Southwest Airlines determine that the departure on runway 34 and 07 was safe for commercial operation? Sincerely, Tom Nau hton President, Orange County Airport Working Group 1%7 _� SOUTHWEST January 20, 2000 Tom Naughten, President Orange County Airport Working Group 1048 Irvine Avenue PMB 467 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Naughten: SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. Brian A. Gleason Chief Operations Engineer Flight Operations P. O. Box 36611 Dallas, Texas 75235-1611 (214) 7926299 Herb Kelleher received your letter dated December 8, 1999, and I am responding on his behalf and on behalf of Southwest Airlines. As your letter describes, the operations by Southwest at MCAS El Toro were performed by Southwest Airlines in accordance with a charter contract with the County of Orange. The safety criteria utilized by Southwest Airlines for scheduled or chartered operations at any airport, including MCAS El Toro, are based on our Operations Specifications, which are determined by the FAA in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations. We assure you that a safe operation is the paramount concern of Southwest Airlines. Thank you for your correspondence. I apologize for any perceived delay in responding to it -- unfortunately; its arrival during the Holiday Season delayed our response. Yours truly,_ c- - Brian Gleason xc. Herb Kelleher Jim Wimberly, E.V.P., C.O.O. Greg Crum, V.P. Flight Operations FTwi' . Airport, Working Group of Orange County, Inc. 8 December, 1999 Mr. John F. Kelly Chairman & C.E.O. Alaska Airlines P.O. Box 68900 Seattle - Tacoma Int'l Airport Seattle, WA. 98168 Dear Mr. Kelly: On 4 June 1999 Alaska Airlines contracted with the County of Orange along with seven (7) other airlines to fly a series of flights at the MCAS El Toro to provide an opportunity for persons working and living in the vicinity to see and hear actual operations by representative types of commercial aircraft, operating at representative weights, using runways and flight tracks in a manner consistent with the analysis that has been completed to date in the planning process for El Toro. Runway 34, which Alaska Airlines used for this demonstration, has been challenged by some parties as unsafe for commercial operation. By what criteria did Alaska determine that the departure on runway 34 was safe for commercial operation? S�incerel , Tom Naughton President, Orange County Airport Working Group le.n .3 ifor January 3, 2000 Mr. Tom Naughton President Orange County Airport Working Group 1048 Irvine Avenue PMB 467 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Naughton: We have received your letter of December 8, 1999 in which you ask about the runway we utilized during our June 4, 1999 demonstration flight at MCAS /EI Toro. You have asked what criteria we used to determine that the departure on runway 34 was safe for commercial operation. The answer to your question is straightforward: we used criteria required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This criteria, used nationwide for all domestic flights, covers test flights like the one we conducted at MCAS /EI Toro. More specifically, the FAA establishes regulations which govern the maximum allowable takeoff weight for every flight and dictates the calculation of the weight based on the performance of the individual airplane and the operating environment at the time. Factors such as temperature, runway iength. wind, obstacles and the surrounding terrain are included in the calculations. All of our June 4 operations complied with the FAA's requirements, and we found the airplane performed well within established limits. Thank you for your inquiry. Sincerely, a�aa�oo - Sa8' F & G - OVERVIEW Bv: Richard F. Taylor, Jr. Airport Working Group ALTERNATIVE F • No constraints on passengers or aircraft operations. Up to 14 million annual passengers per year. • Loss of all general aviation and general aviation related business. • Main runway extended from 5,700 -6,800 feet. • Terminal expanded to 1.14 million square feet. • Average daily trips at or around John Wayne jump 77 %. • Approximately 250 daily jet departures /arrivals • Potential air carrier /air cargo risk for accidents increased by 83.8 • Jet gates expanded to 28, 8 commuter gates • $350 million in costs ALTERNATIVE G • JWA not constrained by existing limits and will handle up to 25 million annual passengers by 2020. • Approximately 700 acres of land taken for airport expansion well beyond existing boundaries • Triple current commercial operations. • Approximately 450 daily jet departures /arrivals. • Average daily trips around John Wayne jurnp 145 %. • Potential air cargo /carrier risk increased by 235.7 %. • Major acquisition of property in all areas around the airport, to include tunneling under SR73 and extending airport boundaries from the 55 freeway to Jamboree Rd. • Expansion of 5,700 foot runway to 6,800 and new 8,000 runway to allow simultaneous operations. • Over $4 billion in costs z ow z W V N� 6L U a CO rn LO� E c 0 w N O C) � O co Oq rw••1 3 v r O CO W W al N O (!j L N OO co c .�: CU U) � . CD N N cn O C C— cu _� C Q O N O O +� U Lo �- L (o co ti o L C: � � ti C; - 00 C 0) co -2 N 00 N E V -C-0 O O N o _o C C) c O L L (6 O p C -� N (� O .O Q 0 +� }, ca o O �L Co Lo (6 ap N _ �_ C C: 07 �L O O N CO ca W r— cm 5 CD 4-0 O � 3: N O N L -1•-+ nt O a-- A O 4 O N LO L m N co Q 0 O m O O co co L M (o _ N L L � � O O co cn E O Q ._ E �v --- ° =3 ° aca cy) z c ) �-- O O C }. � O co C •� 0 LL N N Cfl N O C L N I— O .(n U X (I N _ O ^U L N m W c L i-0 E co C: a) W E N N N +r +r Co a--' M N co N N � N >1 N N (6 E N '^ � L VJ mmm) UD O co r O O ' N (6 O co L O L L O Q C� i m ' w O O _O N _ O cn (� z 4-a N 0- '(a E N O +a _ (6 C O um E ° co a) C) W ° > E ° L O 0 ! � 422 O IM 0 Q � N O U C C Co (6 O C O � (6 wm 'O 0 (a 0 p� �� L— co C= m U Q QL 0 � OX �Q o� �>, Ocn �.� z'm Q-0 z� u W f a z ce W H J a N O 4- O 00 O 4-0 0 O L 4— a) C6 L • C (6 m cm N O 4-0 cn L. CL 1� 0 4— a) O cn Q) O 0) L E E O .•, 1-1 0 -6-1 LL c E d7 • cn cn m Q U O N M T- N N C Ln X _O �L .E L a) 4- O 0 O E r O) C N L O) N U) U) O E It IT- .O L O • >O L cn L Q) O >1 � Q � Q O N N fL U �+ CO o mil N o O o a) a' O o L _C- (� O cn O O N N 40- 4�- N •L (n L Q O C m O p C O 4-0 U =_ L O O L N E C: N L p N 4-0 C U LO CO � L co .� O O O a) L L Y >' ) _ N � O O N N N M O N m m E O O 4-0 Q Q — ° pr C6 M M o C6 .� • C \ U � N Q (n C: co Q Q U U 0 U U L- 0 cnL Q) O O cn c U Q c .O C L O Q) � C6 � C a) L � O 1--i cu U (6 Q) C c _ U) ca C O U) O co U) —0 U > Q ±-� W E .0 L co O m O c Q E L • N L cu L O O L E ui _ O _O �En O E •cn co Q) C C LCU Q > co m 0- Q p D Q) Q) V) N L C U U � C � > U C: o � .L o T .(n O L U fn co O N O CD U) L . � O C Q) -0 Q) •- cn W 0 U U L- 0 cnL Q) O O cn c U Q c .O C L O Q) � C6 � C a) L � O 1--i cu U (6 Q) C c _ U) ca f^ 0 a 1 z c a o a � '.a }, 6 VU Y< aV ZC P� j6 W 1' f y pr P� d 7 r 0 z. 4 a R 4 O M u ZW a� 1� OP �z t' 0 tP 9 tan 4 K S < o O Q = Z K ? n x 6 < P J ¢ 0 Y C a y j6 W 1' f y pr P� d 7 r 0 z. 4 a R 4 O M u ZW a� 1� OP �z t' 0 tP 9 tan 4 K S < o a r� 0 L. 0 LU 0 Z W i a z ce W H J a O O co p O L C L c: 0)" a-- N O ui Co O }' X N O U N 5 O C m �' N O -C — N .— r O Q 20 .> O N }' C O m cn C m O C ca .L (� E L U) O C O _ O N E C O cu _ �� O -0 U V E L O -0 O L (� 0 N 0 O O C L O O 0 L L O C L O O cn U J W C Z c � O co cm 0 o a� C: co a � 0 0 O U U O o > c� Lo m La c!1 �_ L (� .� N E_ •L . X 0 0. � W L to N O N p 0O O > Lo c.) Co ^, 0 m C E co N .� 4-0 w O Q 0 W ►L 0 O c � (n O o N L O O O L O U L O :3 E o �' C :3 m C U C O N L V D L cn O u CU co Ca O1 O ti �L L C U N W C O O U (n Q CL .� C L Q O c O m m O O � C: N O N .cn m =3 0-.— C: lf) U � O � -C O C/) L E O '� O ^, L W � Co L O C L 0-0 O O O C6 .E Ca O Q 75 X L O O O L Q O I..L L C 0 LL O Of -0 W O ti VJ L 0) F— Q W +-0 O I..L C m L G L co =3 O N Q U) O CL U) N 0 O N U U _0 O W C N co c: •� O O U .1--� co N CL co 0 C co U o ccn • O O cn O Q O O 'M CO O 4--O cm '5 C U =3 Co O 4-0 co L L a) CO •� cn 'L I -m 4 MR 0 a) U N co C � � � C C O .0 O Ca > 'C Co O (o -0 Q N C � U C p O L Q O Q L U � co co � cn _0 E _ y-- O o O E _ N (O O E L U OU N (a (6 U > O (o Ca O (u 4 (6 E (o O U X CO — O E L N L_ Q CO *U Q O a) U LONE- -TERM. �- 9URFACE PARKING (EXISTING) J ' LONG-TERM SURFACE PARKING (FUTURE) CARGO (FUTURE) e o., ..a -11-7—_'"I — _ _i I J F. GENERAL AVIATION (FUTURE) .. SURFACE PARKING (FUTURE) AIRPORT SUPPORT I (FUTURE): -= . eR(eTo <Z> EXISTING RUNWAY PAVEMENT <Z> NEW RUNWAY PAVEMENT EXISTING JWA SOUNDRY LINE - -- -NEW JWA SOUNDRY LINE EIR No. 573 Scale In Feet 0 INN WIN =s i i t T i- � F , u STRUCTURED PARKING -- (EXISTING) -- S i c( �'- - - STRUCTURED PARKINS (EXIETINS) ♦ 1 ♦ Y�, AREA '.J, .. CgMPU$ {{ TERMINAL (FUTURE) I ` 7 v0 Y V r G 7 .� STRUCTURED PARKING _ (FUTURE) xy �. 7 1 J �'_ .. .. C o t/ m y o f O r a n g e Figure 8 -8 Alternative G k07g�� gc : I�i ii � '•. l it l � : \ � ;'° oo l jj a nlQiu� It IZ <;U I e I J�. \ tilt" /- k lr VO e 0000000000000© � �I �� ' i � f} fF �# S! j r. ;'1; ° � e •i�:f i 7 dill ia:iaass�ea9 s }csrca :saeesefY ( I / pe3J8�i;iti,44�i 6Pen� SPp.�E A6Ar{OoNED fe4e-z� r+ec� r2esl� nlN�/ �, Ml?( USE pit- -M gE Ae2ar4ec, R Mtr( USE IrCT�'r]!!R Pct NINI(p IN 17 ZAfi jr flItTHC IRVINE COMPANY- -.JURIST ICTIONALGRqERALPI &INS !�, ........ .