Portland International Jetport | PWM

[markhb]

That wooded neighborhood across the river (Congress Terrace) is where my grandparents lived. It's still largely dirt roads!
But now I'm wondering what airline that jet was from. It doesn't look like Northeast and their Yellow birds.
Also, I recall that the city sold the control tower from the old terminal as surplus. I wonder who bought it!

 

[Portlander]

That appears to be an Eastern Airlines aircraft on the ramp which may have been there as a charter flight. You are correct, Northeast was the only jet service out of PWM starting in 1968 and most of their aircraft were yellow though there were some that were white with blue and red accents.

 

[Cosakita18]

That wooded neighborhood across the river (Congress Terrace) is where my grandparents lived. It's still largely dirt roads!
But now I'm wondering what airline that jet was from. It doesn't look like Northeast and their Yellow birds.
Also, I recall that the city sold the control tower from the old terminal as surplus. I wonder who bought it!

Looks like a 707 of Eastern Airlines

 

[Portlander]

The Northeast Yellowbird went away after Delta acquired the airline in late 1972.
Source: Yesterday's Airlines

 

[Cosakita18]

"New uniforms for the prettiest girls this side of Miami Beach"

The 70's definitely were a different time.

 

[Portlander]

And Northeast Airlines' great new one hundred million dollar fleet would only buy them one A320 aircraft today!

 

[PWMFlyer]

On a side note, B6 will be using A220s than the E-190s starting in May.

 

[Cosakita18]

On a side note, B6 will be using A220s than the E-190s starting in May.

They're phasing out their E-190's fleet wide. They'll be mostly gone by this time next year.
B6 just made a series of network cuts that PWM survived. Apparently additional "network rebalancing" will occur in the fall so we'll see what that could mean for JetBlue at PWM.

Breeze will also be moving all their E-190/195's to charter-only operations by the end of the year. Every scheduled flight will be with the A220

 

[markhb]

Thanks! I wondered if it were Eastern, but so far as I knew they never flew here.

And Northeast Airlines' great new one hundred million dollar fleet would only buy them one A320 aircraft today!

I was thinking the same thing!

 

[Portlander]

Not long after Delta purchased Northeast Airlines (1972) and placed their logo on the aircraft prior to a new paint job.
Photo credit: Bob Garrard

 

[PlantArch]

Paul told me last week that the modest expansion at the west end of the terminal (space over the loading dock) that will include new seating and restrooms will be tight financially but they should be able to make it happen.

Well that doesn't bode well for the project doing it "on the cheap".

 

[Portlander]

It is a fairly simple project. Knock down the current wall with windows, build two new walls with windows, add carpet, seating, signage and two new restrooms and voila! The addition will be just above the loading dock where the red ladder is which I personally think is a great use of available space until a major expansion happens in the future.

 

[markhb]

The "tight financially" might just have been a reference to the exorbitant costs of building anything these days. No telling what the bids came in at (assuming they've bid it out already).

 

[Cosakita18]

One interesting and odd thing to note about the Taxiway A reconstruction is that it actually involves reducing the taxiway width from 75 to 50 ft while widening the shoulders from 15 to 25 ft. The overall pavement width remains essentially unchanged but the taxiway proper is narrower. I'm certainly not an expert in airport design standards but to me that seems counterintuitive for an airport that's seeing larger and larger aircraft all the tine. For example the wheelbase of an A320 is 42'...A tight fit on a 50' taxiway even with shoulders. I'd love to know why that's being done.

 

[TC_zoid]

One interesting and odd thing to note about the Taxiway A reconstruction is that it actually involves reducing the taxiway width from 75 to 50 ft while widening the shoulders from 15 to 25 ft. The overall pavement width remains essentially unchanged but the taxiway proper is narrower. I'm certainly not an expert in airport design standards but to me that seems counterintuitive for an airport that's seeing larger and larger aircraft all the tine. For example the wheelbase of an A320 is 42'...A tight fit on a 50' taxiway even with shoulders. I'd love to know why that's being done.

Yes, interesting. I edited a book for a pilot who used to fly 747's and 777's and he told me a story of another pilot (though probably him) who did exactly that, turned a corner on a narrow taxi way and one set of wheels rolled into some soft mud. The plane had to be emptied and towed back to the taxiway. Imagine a full month of April rain and this happening.

 

[gregrc75]

One interesting and odd thing to note about the Taxiway A reconstruction is that it actually involves reducing the taxiway width from 75 to 50 ft while widening the shoulders from 15 to 25 ft. The overall pavement width remains essentially unchanged but the taxiway proper is narrower. I'm certainly not an expert in airport design standards but to me that seems counterintuitive for an airport that's seeing larger and larger aircraft all the tine. For example the wheelbase of an A320 is 42'...A tight fit on a 50' taxiway even with shoulders. I'd love to know why that's being done.

My guess is that the environmental review allows only so much pavement vs permeable surface on the airport. If they reduce the amount of pavement on a taxiway they can add pavement somewhere else where it may be more valuable.

 

[Portlander]

Our current taxiways are wider than what they need to be for Class A runways with the shoulders being 10' too narrow. So this project will address this shortcoming without violating the safety distance between the taxiway and the tails of parked aircraft at the terminal which is already borderline with Gates 2-6 requiring an FAA waiver which may still be active. The odds of the Portland market ever being served by wide body aircraft other than FedEx cargo flights are very slim which would then require the 75' taxiways.

Wide bodied aircraft would also utilize larger loading bridges, wider wingspan space at the terminal and a minimum 8000' runway (passenger flights) that would also need to be strengthened to handle the extra weight. The far eastern taxiway will remain 75' to accommodate FedEx's need to transit from their facility to Runway 29 for departures. So back to Ben's question, PWM currently only meets one of two safety regulations for taxiway width and shoulders and when the project is completed the airport will be compliant with the FAA on both without sacrificing the infrastructure already in place.

 

[Cosakita18]

My guess is that the environmental review allows only so much pavement vs permeable surface on the airport. If they reduce the amount of pavement on a taxiway they can add pavement somewhere else where it may be more valuable.

My understanding is that FAA standards trump all state and local environmental standards. For example, when runway 18/36 was being widened and lengthened the City of South Portland was unsupportive of the project, but the FAA stepped in and gave the ultimate go-ahead.

 

[Cosakita18]

View attachment 48844

Our current taxiways are wider than what they need to be for Class A runways with the shoulders being 10' too narrow. So this project will address this shortcoming without violating the safety distance between the taxiway and the tails of parked aircraft at the terminal which is already borderline with Gates 2-6 requiring an FAA waiver which may still be active. The odds of the Portland market ever being served by wide body aircraft other than FedEx cargo flights are very slim which would then require the 75' taxiways.

Wide bodied aircraft would also utilize larger loading bridges, wider wingspan space at the terminal and a minimum 8000' runway (passenger flights) that would also need to be strengthened to handle the extra weight. The far eastern taxiway will remain 75' to accommodate FedEx's need to transit from their facility to Runway 29 for departures. So back to Ben's question, PWM currently only meets one of two safety regulations for taxiway width and shoulders and when the project is completed the airport will be compliant with the FAA on both without sacrificing the infrastructure already in place.

Great explanation! I'm wondering why they didn't choose to widen the shoulders while leaving the 75' taxiway in place...MHT and even BTV have 25'-75'-25' taxiways. At the very least it would offer more operational flexibility although I'm sure a FedEx 757 or A300 could still go down to Runway 11 if needed. I'd assume it has to do with separation between the taxiway and 11/29.

I'm still hoping the Runway 18/36 taxiway will be realigned and widened as identified in the Master Plan. The Jetport's biggest hinderance isn't taxiway width or runway space....it's apron space and realigning the 18/36 taxiway would create lots of opportunity for new apron.

 

[Portlander]

The real main issue is the distance between the taxiway and the parked aircraft for safe movement along with the tight fit of the apron and close proximity of the terminal would not allow for an additional 15'. The cargo activity at MHT and BTV are much more extensive than Portland with both being served by FedEx and UPS. Burlington also has the Vermont Air National Guard that brings in large USAF aircraft for training so both of the airport taxiway dimensions meet their required needs that also coincide with longer runways of 8300' plus. And you are correct, if needed due to severe wind direction issues FedEx can but rarely uses Runway 11 for takeoffs and it's lighter weigh from unloading it's cargo along with no passengers makes 7200' a non issue from either direction.