Comments on: Long Beach’s 75,000 Pound Weight Limit

By: CF

CF — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:51:41 +0000

David M – Ah, one I actually can answer! Alaska currently has 5 big jet slots and they were using them all for mainline service. They decided to put a Horizon CRJ-700 in Portland and another in Seattle. Instead of using the big jet slots, they opted to request commuter slots. So those are operated as commuters alongside the 5 Delta-allocated commuter slots.

Alaska still holds those big jet slots, but since they aren’t using them right now, other airlines are allowed to use them on a temporary basis with the understanding that Alaska can kick them out with relatively short notice. So, Delta took that opportunity to use the two big jet slots for its CRJ-900 flying. That started July 1. If Alaska wants those slots back, Delta will have to go back to an aircraft with less than 75,000 pounds.

By: David M

David M — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:43:05 +0000

It’s sometimes hard to keep track of things, but last I heard DL had only commuter slots, but when I was up there a couple of weeks ago, they were using the CRJ-900 on some of the SLC flights. I remember that AS was originally only able to get commuter slots so they started LGB service with QX’s CRJ-700s but eventually got mainline, but when I was there there was a QX operated flight. Did AS/QX pick up additional commuter slots? Are they operating the CRJ-700 using mainline slots? Did they swap with Delta? Do SkyWest’s CRJ-900s qualify under the lower weight because they’re two class and thus carry fewer passengers than Mesa’s?

By: CF

CF — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:04:20 +0000

DesertKid – I think you’re right about the Q400 – max payload will get you just enough to get to Boise but not much more. I really don’t think Denver will work.

BTW, I just updated the post with some additional noise info, but I’ll copy it here for those who are only following the comment thread now:

After getting more information, I have found that the CRJ-700s are actually quieter than the Embraer 190s on departure but not on arrival, so it’s a mixed bag. The CRJ-900, however, is quieter than the CRJ-700 across the board and it can’t use commuter slots, so my point is still the same.

By: Desertkid

Desertkid — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:04:32 +0000

CF – Think back to the 90’s, there was discussion about ‘commuters’ using 25L. Remember, ‘commuters’ back there were Metros, Jetstreams, and the biggest Brasilia. They did want to spread the noise pool away from 30. This was ‘theory’. Of course, as you know, any pilot will always ask for the longest runway, hence most pilots request 30.

As far as the Q400 – Horizon flight some long legs LAX-BOI. According to the Bombardier website the range on a Q400 is over 1,000nm (again – that’s theory). What is the max payload range?? I’m guessing closer to 800nm, but I think LGBDEN is do-able with a Q400.

By: rm

rm — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:12:41 +0000

This 75,000 lb aircraft/noise limit is nothing but a convenient 2-second excuse, for city council members to use to qwell the residents of Long Beach that actually understand what a valuable tax base the LGB airport is. The FAA does not give a crap about what the weight of airplanes going into LGB is. This is only, ONLY an artificial limit set up by the city council. There are certainly 6 six passenger Lear Jets taking off, and 10 ton dump trucks driving nearby, that probably set off the noise sensors well before a JetBlue A320 does. If the Long Beach City Council had a brain, they would expand the terminal area and even consider putting in a Customs location, so JetBlue could run flights to Cabo, Mazatlan, and Puerto Vallarta out of there. Maybe they should just go ahead and let this airport completely shut down and let the homeowners near the airport, pick up the slack for the loss of tax revenue. It’s not like these folks didn’t know they were moving next to an airport when they bought their houses.

By: Bob's your Uncle

Bob's your Uncle — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 01:37:56 +0000

Cranky Flyer almost covered all the bases. The rest of the diamond ring is Gulfstream. Those suckers are LOUD!!! They also weigh far less than an E-190 like JetBlue operatates and is willing to schedule into Long Beach Tomorrow!!!

Noise Limits. Period. Dot. End of discussion. Hello JetBlue.

By: CF

CF — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:37:56 +0000

Carl – Well, as a Long Beach resident, maybe I could file but I’m definitely not going to touch that one with a 10 foot pole!

By: Carl

Carl — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:51:18 +0000

CF- Can we qualify as a third party under 14 C.F.R Part 16? :)

I don’t think JetBlue doesn’t wants to play that game, nor do I think they should. They should try to retain the good guy label, if 16.43 ever gets challenged. If they wanted to challenge 16.43, they probably would have by now.

By: CF

CF — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:43:40 +0000

B6 LGB – I agree 100%. There are definitely down times during the day, but those aren’t going to be at times they’d actually want to schedule a flight. If I’m JetBlue, I’m just starting to lay the groundwork for the opportunity to utilize the commuter slots when the new terminal is done.

Carl – Or even JetBlue could end up challenging it if they wanted to. I’m really not sure that they want to play it that way, but I agree that someone will eventually.

By: Carl

Carl — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:40:46 +0000

If the City really wanted to fill those slots, wouldn’t this be the perfect time to try to modify the 75K weight limit?

1) The economic climate is such that I don’t see any airlines wanting to add mainline service to LGB.

2) I would think that with a democratic administration in place, the FAA may be a little more favorable to the NIMBY’s and would allow such a change to 16.43 without voiding it. However, the DoT did allow the CO ATI.

I can understand the City’s reluctance to modify 16.43 though. The allocation of slots to JetBlue way back when led to lawsuit and subsequent settlement.

In the FAA’s response to the agreement, they said “it is unnecessary at this time for the FAA to take a position on whether Chapter 16.43 meets Federal requirements for airport access. At some point in the future, however, the FAA maybe presented with a complaint from a third party under 14 C.F.R. Part 16, or may have reason to review Chapter 16.43 from a compliance standpoint on its own initiative. The FAA thus reserves the right to review the consistency of Chapter 16.43 with Federal law in the future.”

I would think any modification of 16.43 may trigger a Federal review, and the City is scared.

Of course, if air travel picks up once the new terminal is complete, I would expect a challenge to 16.43 from either CO/UA or WN.