PDA

View Full Version : Bloomberg: No More Runways? Use Seaplanes Instead!



Matt Molnar
2006-06-19, 09:58 AM
Associated Press story:


Bloomberg Suggests Return Of Seaplanes To Ease Airport Congestion

POSTED: 8:34 am EDT June 19, 2006
UPDATED: 8:35 am EDT June 19, 2006

NEW YORK -- More than 60 years after the Pan American flying boat Yankee Clipper departed Long Island Sound on its last trans-Atlantic flight, New York's mayor says it may be time to resurrect the seaplane -- not to restore the romance of aviation's "golden age," but to ease pressure on the city's crowded airports.

During a recent radio show, Mayor Michael Bloomberg noted that airport and ground facilities lag behind the growth of intercontinental jet travel, and said congestion would increase as Gotham's population reaches an estimated 9 million in the next 15 years.

"People are going to fly more and more, that's the wave of the future," said Bloomberg. Riding that wave, he suggested, could be the seaplane.

"If you take a look at a map, one thing we have going for us is an enormous runway all around -- it's called the water," he said. "For local, short flights, to let's say, Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, Florida ... you can land out away from everybody and then taxi in."


While Bloomberg is not noted for flights of fancy, his remarks conjured up images of the China Clipper, Yankee Clipper and other famous flying boats that spanned oceans in the 1930s, an aviation heyday cut short by World War II and killed off by the jet age.

Bloomberg, a licensed pilot who flies his own helicopter, anticipated practical questions -- such as who would build a new generation of large commercial seaplanes, and where they might land and take off.

LaGuardia Airport's Marine Air Terminal, the New York base for the Pan Am flying boats, fell into neglect after their demise. Since refurbished as an art-deco landmark, with a mural depicting "Flight" and a model Clipper hanging from the ceiling to evoke the bygone era, it still serves corporate aircraft and Delta Airlines' shuttle to Chicago.

Pan Am's 28 Clippers saw wartime service and were gone, mostly scrapped, by 1950. The Dixie Clipper, a Boeing 314 that inaugurated the trans-Atlantic route in June 1939, became the forerunner of Air Force One by carrying President Franklin D. Roosevelt to a Casablanca meeting with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1943. That same year, the Yankee Clipper crashed and sank near Lisbon.

Not all seaplanes followed the Clippers into oblivion, but most today are small aircraft built in Canada, Japan and the United States. They're used for short commuter flights and island-hopping sightseers.

Only Russia builds what Bloomberg called "enormous seaplanes" that carry 50 or 100 people. He apparently meant the Beriev Be-200, a 72-seat passenger plane derived from a military jet called the Albatross. With no airline takers, it is so far a commercial flop.

Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser said Bloomberg was serious about the seaplane idea.

"New York is surrounded by water and it is a great resource," he said. "The problem is that we have too many flights and not enough spots, and the mayor feels that in a broad vision, seaplanes are an obvious alternative. There are no seaplanes on the market now, but there could be."

Spokesmen at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates the region's three major airports -- Newark Liberty, LaGuardia and John F. Kennedy International -- refused to return repeated calls seeking comment.

Elsewhere, Bloomberg's idea was greeted with skepticism.

"It's absolutely fabulous -- just as soon as we bring back the Hindenburg," said Michael Boyd, president of the Boyd Group, an aviation consulting firm in Denver. "It's so far out he might as well be talking about intergalactic travel."

The Hindenburg was a German dirigible destroyed by fire as it landed at Lakehurst, N.J., in 1937, a death-knell for commercial airships.

In a telephone interview, Boyd said seaplane technology "has long since been leapfrogged by aviation advances," and environmental issues "would be huge." The mayor had dismissed those concerns, saying there were "no environmental issues to speak of."

As one example, Boyd said, salt-water corrosion would be a serious problem for the amphibious planes. "Nobody remembers that those Boeing Clippers needed a three-day turnaround. They had to be hosed down after every flight," he said.

Mellyrose
2006-06-19, 10:02 AM
Ah, ya beat me to it! I read this in the Metro Paper this morning and was going to post it. Bah.

T-Bird76
2006-06-19, 10:13 AM
That is the perhaps the most moronic thing I think I've ever heard! Bring back seaplanes?? I mean wow..... :roll:

JRadier
2006-06-19, 02:13 PM
Good thing your mayor has such good idea's. I wish they are that smart over here......

Matt Molnar
2006-06-19, 03:40 PM
I know I read this somewhere last week and meant to post it and now I can't find it. Apparently today is a slow news day and the AP finally ran it now so it's a big story a week later.

Anyway, the original story I read was based on the same Bloomberg quotes, but included a couple of statements that put the whole thing in a completely different context. He did not mean for this idea as a widescale solution to the problem, as this article is toned. He said that flights on seaplanes would likely be significantly more expensive than conventional aircraft, but that it would be a good fit for the wealthy travelers who travel in and out.

mirrodie
2006-06-19, 09:21 PM
But dude...could you imagine having the Pan AM Clippers back?: C'mon Tom, you know you want it! :P

Tom_Turner
2006-06-19, 09:44 PM
Bloomberg is no idiot; he's a self made billionaire. He puts his money where his mouth is. And, he's got a healthy interest in public policy.

As it stands now, cessna float planes simply take people to the Hamptons, but trips to W-DC and Philadelphia from Downtown was done 30 years ago on DeHavilland equipment.

What exactly is Boyd's solution?

Its not 50 years ago. Lighter than Air is not utilizing Hydrogen. Seaplanes can be equiped with Jet Engines; and tilt rotor technology may yet prove safe enough for civil applications.

Someplace like Governor's Island could be used as a "city airport" with any of that technology if the will existed to explore it. At the least, STOL aircraft could work. Probably never happen..but then again, it appears nothing will happen there. Certainly we will not see casinos there, and thats almost the only idea that would pay for itself.

Tom

T-Bird76
2006-06-19, 10:07 PM
I don't think Boyd has to provide a solution in this case. The use of seaplanes is not a good idea. Even if Bloomberg wanted to explore this concept the technology just isn't focused on this. I know some people don't like Boyd because of his "direct" approach to things but the man is dead on with his predictions and analysis.

PhilDernerJr
2006-06-20, 11:01 AM
I hate posting after Tom Turner. He makes everyone after him look stupid. lol

LGA's runway issue is a gigantic one. It's not a runway length issue, a gate space issue, or anything like that. It's all an ATC mess due to those cross-secting runways.

I think the only way to fix that is to create more incentives for airlines to spread out their schedules to off-peak times and to consolidate some flights onto larger aircraft.

Alex T
2006-06-20, 11:13 AM
I think the only way to fix that is to create more incentives for airlines to spread out their schedules to off-peak times and to consolidate some flights onto larger aircraft.

STL Airport is doing just that for American Airlines, for every new mainline flight/jet AA brings into STL instead of RJ's STL won't charge so much for landing fees for the new runway.

This is why we are seeing a rise of mainline at STL and a reduction of RJ's.

Example, AA axxed the 3 daily STL-SEA MD80 and made it two daily 757, STL-MSY was axxed of 2 RJ and made 2 daily MD80, just those type of things.

Alex

T-Bird76
2006-06-20, 11:18 AM
The problem isn't just that the airlines want to fly their planes during certain periods of time, it’s the flying public. People want to leave at certain times of the day and this is what causes the traffic problem. Leaving LGA at 1Pm is great there's no one there but it kills the day. As a biz traveler I really can't go into work because I need to get to the airport by 11:30 and a 1PM departure would put me into most destinations to late to conduct any real business. It turns into a waste of a day vs. leaving early in the morning or late in the day.

The airlines also tried a rolling hub system a couple years back and all of them went back to bank systems. The simple fact of the matter is LGA is way too small for today's needs. It’s too bad JFK isn't closer to Manhattan; JFK is still very under utilized by the airlines.