Plenty of people are concerned about the safety aspect of forced upgrades, but they are more concerned about not getting their retro check so are yes votes.

 

This planned extra runway has seemed to be an urban legend for sometime now. Whether it’s true or not is irrelevant as It really wouldn’t solve anything as remember TRACON has only one side for radar downwind……because of LaGuardia.

 

I'll file that EWR plan in the same file as the 20+ year (ago) plans for
1) Expansion of IAD, getting rid of the 'temporary' C/D terminals. There was actually a little hope when they built the underground train. ... ever wonder why the C/D train terminal is in such an odd place?
2) Terminal 9 for LAX.
Both of the above plans had environmental impact studies completed more than 20 years ago.

 

Ok but surely you can see how “since we’re already compromising safety in these other areas it must then be acceptable to compromise safety in this one also” is an unconvincing argument. You can make the point for hypocrisy, but placing one unsafe thing next to another doesn’t make it any more or less safe merely by comparison.

You’ve formed an opinion. No one faults you that. What I find interesting is your assumption that anyone who reaches a different conclusion must not have done their research, hasn’t spoken to the “right” people, or is just full of it. While you may have pondered this issue in depth, you might just entertain the idea that claiming safety concerns are just “BS” doesn’t exactly paint you as a very thoughtful person.

For my part, it is troubling to see so many pilots argue the “it’s not that big of a deal” side of things that historically ALPA has had to push back against from airlines, schedulers, the public, and others, to fight for many of the safety protections we enjoy today. If you’re confident it’s nothing to be concerned about, I can only say I respectfully disagree; though I understand my opinion is not the gospel according to St. Paul. You might consider the same.

 

A new C/D at IAD has historically always been a funding issue between United and MWAA for many years. United didn’t want to fund the project pre-Kirby days since they believe the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze at one point and the MWAA when way over budget with A/B project and underground train that caused the airport fees to balloon….

It took the state of Virginia to step to push the MWAA to start cost-sharing between DCA/IAD thus lowering IAD fees and then United all of a sudden saw a new opportunity for Dulles within its network….

 

I must have the same file with the addition of the A350. Any day now…

 

Pretty sure when you go to airport managers school, first lessons are how to draw up plans for never-ending expansion, remodeling, and construction. I don't think I've ever been to an airport where you can't find a display somewhere how it's going to double in size and be the most modern version on itself in the next decade.

 

I'm not saying you can't form a contrary opinion having done research or speaking to the right people (and in this case, the right people are simply just people who spit facts and literally nothing else). I'm saying most the people who have expressed opposition don't actually do that. You are taking the most generous possible interpretation of someone who opposes it, which is simply just not what's happening in real life. They gossip on their forums, gin each other up in their online echo chambers, and then when you start peeling back the onion of what they think the facts are, it becomes readily apparent that it's grounded in hearsay and echo chamber rants, because a lot of their reasoning is just outright false. In my experience, most of these guys simply go looking for a reason to justify their pre-formed opinion, because their reasoning just falls apart every time. Other notable examples: opposing age 67 because of safety concerns. Stop it. It's because you don't want your seniority to stagnate for 2 years. Or, the "medical freedom" guys. It's about being anti-vax. If that's the hill you want to die on, then fine, but please do me the courtesy of not treating me like an idiot and pretending it's anything other than that.

If you want to have thoughtful, theoretical internet debates, then carry on. I'm just keeping it 100% real: the younger generation at this airline sees through all this BS crying about "safety" and "oh no we have to protect the new hires". They want their money.

 

you mean just like airline CEO school?

 

Terminal 9 at LAX will be open this decade.

A350’s will not be coming to United.

I’m not sure when IAD will get fixed…