Portland International Jetport | PWM

But is there demand for that many TATL seats out of Portland? Longer runway gets you bigger jets, which means more seats that need to be filled. I can't foresee Portland having the volume to compete with BOS, of course, but as an economic matter I think if we could get one or more of the Icelandic carriers in here (which can easily be done with the current runway), then you magically get one-stop to all of Europe, instead of 1-a-week just to Shannon or something.
 
PWMFlyer said:
I asked that question several years ago to Greg Hughes at the jetport. The issue with the first road is the water issue from runoff. They would have to create a major diversion or a water containment for storm water or pipe. The road could easily be tunneled as well as the turnpike. It all comes down to cost... maybe 10 years ago, but with advanced technology in engines, is the 9,000 ft runway necessary?
PWM 7,200
LGA 7,002
DCA 7,169
EYW 5,076
PVD 8,700
VRB 7,314
Click to expand...
Good points. However, even though it was many moons ago, I accumulated 17 hours in Piper at the Jetport. It was a lot of touch and gos on 18/36, but a few on slooooooow days with 11/29. I got a feel for it. Yes, LGA is 7,002 and they seem to have relatively no problems, but I've actually been in a plane, a Gulfstream (my boss paid for it), and while landing, maybe at the point of being ten feet off the ground, the pilot hits full thrust to take off without touching pavement and just makes it (Des Moines Int) over an obstacle at the end of the shorter runway. If we had more fuel in the tanks, perhaps a disaster (a Gulfstream with half a tank of fuel can take off like a rocket ship, by the way). I talked with one of the pilots after, and he was a bit embarrassed, mostly. It was a warning light on the instrument panel related to the landing gear, but I think they were not paying attention and only noticed it just before the expected touchdown. It was not incompetence, but negligence or human error. We ended up doing a go around so the tower could examine the gear--no problems. I think Portland needs more length on 11/29 for safety purposes. Hey, things happen. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-mar-06-mn-6031-story.html (weirdly perhaps, I met the woman who was in the car that this plane ended up resting on, at a party in LA).
 
Last edited:
It was just wistful thinking on my end and I was very pleased when the runway was lengthened from 6800' decades ago. My brother is an A350 Captain for Delta and the "comfort level" magic number for commercial pilots is 8000' and he has also flown every narrow body in the fleet. Heat, humidity, rain, ice, snow and elevation above sea level all play a role in the performance of an aircraft on landings and takeoffs and more runway is always better. PWM's current runway length is sufficient due to advancements in today's newer commercial aircraft but if any of the previously mentioned airports with shorter runways (including Portland) could physically expand they would surely do so for safety purposes. PVD shouldn't even be on the list and can handle any aircraft type after it went from 7166' to 8700' in 2017. As far as TATL flights, longer runways get you longer distances traveled without being as concerned with aircraft weight which involves fuel, PAX, baggage and cargo for takeoffs.
 
SNA has a runway 1,500 feet shorter than PWM and yet still manages to accommodate transcon flights to EWR and JFK. I think we're ok with our "Sm-edium" runway :)
 
That is correct. However, many of the SNA transom flights have weight restrictions and I was on a flight (757) out of John Wayne back in April that was affected. PWM is also 200 miles further east than the NYC metro area and SNA has very few weather issues when compared to Maine winters and the airport is only 54' above sea level. Bottom line, a longer runway is always preferred by pilots. The A220-300 is the long distance winner out of Portland in the future where runway length is not an issue. (y)
 
PWMFlyer said:
I asked that question several years ago to Greg Hughes at the jetport. The issue with the first road is the water issue from runoff. They would have to create a major diversion or a water containment for storm water or pipe. The road could easily be tunneled as well as the turnpike. It all comes down to cost... maybe 10 years ago, but with advanced technology in engines, is the 9,000 ft runway necessary?
Click to expand...
The runoff is a good point; everything in that area, around Western Ave. and the Turnpike interchange, that isn't paved is a wetland full of cattails. If the runoff can be dealt with, the next question that comes to my mind is, how can the Turnpike interchange ramps be graded in and out of the tunnel to accommodate semis?
 
In the master report, there was an option to add 400 ft at one end, you could add 400 at the other end as well. Johnson road would be underground.
1732044290624.png
 
Looking at it on Google earth, and measuring it out, I certainly think there is room to level 400 feet each way and pave to get the primary runway to 8,000 feet! Unless there are restrictions/rules I’m not aware of.
 
I think that idea was nixed by the FAA many years ago because the lower approach path (21 feet) to Runway 29 brought aircraft too close to vehicles on I295. Also, Taxiway A could not be extended so back taxi-ing would be required which would be a hindrance to cohesive airport operations. As Cosakita mentioned, our SM-edium length runway is OK and any effort to expand it would be difficult and extremely expensive.
 
Last edited:
And, unrelated though maybe not, Brunswick has a relatively easy lengthening for one of its 8,000 footers to reach up to 15,000 for when Elon Musk builds his "Super Duper Mars Lander" aircraft that can take off and land like a plane with over 100 passengers on board. Hey, you know it's coming (electric for batteries with 1000x density).
 
Last edited:
Enplanement numbers are out for October: 220,230 which is a decline of 26,214 from last year's count. Wonder what service was cut back from the previous October to cause an average loss of 845 passengers per day, Cosakita?
 
Last edited:
Portlander said:
Enplanement numbers are out for October: 220,230 which is a decline of 26,214 from last year's count. Wonder what service was cut back from the previous October to cause an average loss of 845 passengers per day, Cosakita?
Click to expand...
They still haven’t uploaded Delta numbers. Give it a week and that will be updated to another record month.
 
Good catch NR2Portland, I was a little perplexed with the decline in passengers but was heading out the door and should have paid closer attention. (y)
 
Delta apparently outsourced a ton of their work overseas so it’s been a process getting numbers for the Jetport recently.
 
Cosakita18 said:
Pretty amazing statistic:

In both July and August, United’s PWM-DEN had one of the highest load factors in United’s entire domestic network. With a load factor of…get this….96.4% !!!
Click to expand...
Meanwhile 77 miles away... United announced today that they're joining Delta in pulling out of MHT. Ending MHT-EWR/IAD by May. This leaves AA as the only legacy carrier in Manchester.
 
Like I said…

Death, Taxes, and airlines dropping MHT😂

Two years ago, Spirit, this year Sun Country, next year we will see United… wow
 
I hope those that oversee PWM see MHT as a cautionary tale. Twenty years ago, MHT was in the top 50 busiest airports in the country. The change in air travel dynamics can be relatively quick.
 
MHT more and more turning into a leisure/cargo airport. BTV will definitely be ahead in passenger numbers...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top