11,800 Foot Runway = "Tiny Airport"?

Palmpilot said:
OK, I get that SWF's terminal is not set up to handle a double-decker jumbo jet, but Travel + Leisure magazine apparently thinks that an airport with an 11,817 foot runway is "tiny." o_O

The 'Bomb Cyclone' Forced the World's Biggest Passenger Jet to Land at a Tiny New York Airport
Click to expand...

I've flown there commercially when I was with the airline and the terminal is very small and outdated. Seems like the last time I was there 4-5 years ago there were plans to expand it. Used to see Travolta's 707 there all the time. Reason the runway is long is it used to be an active Air Force base, and presently has an Air National Guard unit flying C-17s and a Marine Reserve unit flying C-130s there. I think there's a Cessna Citation service center there too maybe.
 
But, but passengers had to wait for stairs before they could exit the plane. The horror!
 
11,817 X 50. That's a tiny airport.

Oh wait.. 12k x 150? That's a yugeee!
 
SkyDog58 said:
But, but passengers had to wait for stairs before they could exit the plane. The horror!
Click to expand...

They could've parked it close to a light pole and let the passengers slide down. ;)
 
Yea when I read tiny airport I immediately looked up the runway length knowing that fine journalism would not have judged an airport by runway length.
 
Larry in TN said:
I think that most non-pilots would be more likely to judge the "size" of an airport by its terminal and flight schedule than its runways.
Click to expand...
An “airport” has four components. In order of importance: (1) A Starbucks; (2) A sports bar; (3) Security line; and (4) “Tarmac” (i.e., everything outside).
 
So, is it safe to say the word bomb on that flight?
 
jordane93 said:
Fine journalism.
Click to expand...
If you're a passenger and the terminal is 400 square feet the airport would seem tiny. Most people could care less about the length of the runway, most never even see it unless they're in a window seat. As far as the passengers perspective it is a tiny airport. Nothing wrong about story.
 
I used to fly into aguadilla in PR. I considered it tiny because there is no services there. So what if the runway is 12000 ft if I can't get gas and a place to pee?
 
Paulie said:
If you're a passenger and the terminal is 400 square feet the airport would seem tiny. Most people could care less about the length of the runway, most never even see it unless they're in a window seat. As far as the passengers perspective it is a tiny airport. Nothing wrong about story.
Click to expand...
The story is OK, but it's another example of the epidemic of exaggerated headlines that I've been seeing lately.
 
Larry in TN said:
I think that most non-pilots would be more likely to judge the "size" of an airport by its terminal and flight schedule than its runways.
Click to expand...
You're probably right, but the term just struck me as odd.
 
Paulie said:
If you're a passenger and the terminal is 400 square feet the airport would seem tiny. Most people could care less about the length of the runway, most never even see it unless they're in a window seat. As far as the passengers perspective it is a tiny airport. Nothing wrong about story.
Click to expand...

I've been in and out of there a few times. The terminal is more than 400 square feet. :D

It is a small airport, as commercial airports go, but I've been to smaller (and it had a shorter runway, too). That airport, both as self loading cargo and as PIC. I'll take PIC any day.
 
It never ceases to amaze me how clueless 'content providers' (can't call them serious reporters) can be. I'm also a rail-fan and they have no knowledge or that either. They need something to print or put on line so in their ignorance they proceed to make things as scary as possible. It must be tough for those uneducated folks to put together a story. In the world of both aviation and railroading they make every single incident in which no one was hurt sound like everyone involved was terror struck.

I have a nephew who was in that game and got out of it because his editor didn't give a rat's ass about accuracy, he just wanted something to print. Nephew now owns his own business.
 
mscard88 said:
They could've parked it close to a light pole and let the passengers slide down. ;)
Click to expand...

Do they make light poles from brass?

I can hear you now: "ladies first, children cover your eyes"
 
I’ve often said that when so called journalists report on something you know a lot about and you see how rubbish the reporting really is, it really makes you think twice when you read something about a topic where you’re not an expert and thus relying on the reporter to report accurately. Quite scary/sad really.

There are reporters out there that truly care and take time to try and learn enough to report accurately and then there are many others that are just happy to publish junk, get credit for some column inches and move on.
 
Used to fly out of SWF quite frequently, back in the day. AA 727’s to ORD, then on to wherever...
 
From a commercial flight perspective, it is tiny. There's only 6 gates. Curb to security to gate takes about 10 minutes even when it's 'busy'. Having a huge runway left over from the old Air Force days is irrelevant.
 
ZeroPapaGolf said:
From a commercial flight perspective, it is tiny. There's only 6 gates. Curb to security to gate takes about 10 minutes even when it's 'busy'. Having a huge runway left over from the old Air Force days is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

6 gates is huge. PUW has 1. And TSA opens only about 15-20 minutes before flight time. There aren't that many flights each day. But, I get your point about SWF. It isn't a large (from a passenger point of view) airport.
 
The big issue was 400 passengers and probably 4 or 5 customs officers to process.
 
The terminal at this point is I believe 8 jet ways big but isn't set up for a wide body to come into it. The plane had to use a follow me vehicle in because the way the terminal is setup there is a hill beside the taxiway with the Signature ramp on the other side, so all the equipment and planes had to be moved so the wings wouldn't clip anything. The main runways are huge but the passenger terminal isn't used setup for something of that size, they brought a 787 in tonight another diversion from JFK and have to park it in the same spot. Customs is only separated by a movable divider in the terminal, however Norwegian operates a bunch of flights in and out every night and people are off those planes in a matter of no time at all.
 
Norman said:
It never ceases to amaze me how clueless 'content providers' (can't call them serious reporters) can be. I'm also a rail-fan and they have no knowledge or that either. They need something to print or put on line so in their ignorance they proceed to make things as scary as possible. It must be tough for those uneducated folks to put together a story. In the world of both aviation and railroading they make every single incident in which no one was hurt sound like everyone involved was terror struck.

I have a nephew who was in that game and got out of it because his editor didn't give a rat's ass about accuracy, he just wanted something to print. Nephew now owns his own business.
Click to expand...
You mean they're not stable geniuses? :D :D :D
 
Mostly reporters write what they were told on news stories.

Really doesn't help them when I am the one they are talking to....
 
It is a tiny airport. The size of the runway is of no interest to a passenger.

They got it right.
 
Airport vs runway size aside, the writing is still terrible:

What made this particular diversion unusual is that the aircraft was the world's largest passenger jet, the Airbus A380, and the small and unassuming airport was able to land Singapore Airlines’ Airbus A380, the world's largest passenger jet.
Click to expand...
 
I landed at that airport. I didn't seem very long to me......




But it sure was wide...
 
The article implies that it was a dangerous airport for a plane that large to land at. That is why the passengers have to use stairs is also included.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
They landed C-5s at SWF. They were stationed there. Now they are landing C-17s. They used to land B-52s at SWF as well as all kinds of fighters.
Oh, they can land the Space Shuttle there, if they need someplace to go in an emergency.
If there was a Space Shuttle.
Air Force One has landed there, many times.

More fake news.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top