Jackson Heights Life

i'm all for declaring Newark the 24 hour airport. New Jersey deserves it.

in all seriousness, i think LGA is third most likely, if that is to happen.

in order to turn either of the others into round-the-clock operations, all the port authority has to do is flip the bird to residents (and win a decade or so of court fights).

in order to do the same for LGA, the agency would need to put in tens of millions (at least) in improvements beyond what they're doing already -- i haven't looked lately, but i don't think there's quite enough runway lengthening/alteration to allow the biggest planes to land, and if you can't fully utilize the facility, why bother? i may be wrong about that last part, please correct me if i am.

not arguing any of those points.

arguing that, if NYC does get a 24-7 airport, it won't be LGA. it would take additional billions to acquire and condemn properties needed to make the airport runways accessible for the biggest planes. and another 10 years of construction.

at JFK or EWR, you keep the lights on for a few more hours and add a shift on the job front.

are there any stateside airports open 24-7 now? i can't think of any in the lower 48

they would have to double the length of the runways -- the one that occasionally puts takeoffs over our homes is 7003 ft x 150 ft and the dimensions needed for handling heavier, 747 and larger planes, would have to match JFK's, which are 13,000 feet x 200 feet and 15,000 feet x 250 feet. we'd notice a runway being extended by a mile or more, since it would extend outside the airport grounds.

QuietSkies.net representative suggests sending the letter below to federal elected officials --
* * *
Dear ,

As you know the Senate and House may soon pass an interim 2016 FAA Re-authorization Bill. At present there are House (H.R. 4441 ) and Senate ( H.R. 636) bills which must be reconciled to a single bill and passed by both houses.
These two bills have provision that, in a perfect world, might be sufficient to get us on the road to fair and safe noise  levels for those of us on the ground. Unfortunately we don't live in that perfect world and many sections of the bills are simply "feel good" phrases that relate to greater citizen input to airspace changes. There is no requirement to change the threshold from 65DNL to 55DNL or to any other value for that matter. And, as we all know, if the noise threshold is not changed then, with or without citizen involvement, the FAA will have no motivation to make needed changes.
The only section that comes close to helping us get meaningful and potentially safer noise levels is Sec. 604 of H.R. 4441 which states:   
SEC. 604. Aircraft noise exposure

(a) Review- The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
shall conduct a review of the relationship between aircraft noise exposure and its effects on communities around airports.

(b) Report

(1) In general- Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report containing the  results of the review.

(2) Preliminary recommendations - The report shall contain such preliminary recommendations as the Administrator determines appropriate for revising the land use
compatibility guidelines in part 150 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, based on the results of the review and in coordination with other agencies"

[Note: An exact copy of SEC 604, with proper indentation, is available]

Please do what you can  to keep Sec. 604 in the final bill.

Thanks in advance,


--
"The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States
to promote an environment for all Americans free from
noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare."
NOISE CONTROL ACT of 1972
<<<

13/31 shut down this weekend so it's probably going to be a crappy weekend for us... plan a trip

I can already feel my heart rate rising. 

They never did the takeoffs from runway 22, so it turned out to be not bad. Phew!