Jump to content

Norfolk International Airport


willy

Recommended Posts

some of the Richmond stats are a little off but its good to know that people in N.N. have so many options when traveling by  air

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah Richmond has like 30 non-stop destinations doesn't it? I think Norfolk actually does have about 32 or so. I can't wait till the end of this year when JetBlue makes an annoucement about its new routes! (crosses fingers)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

NATO Headquarters? I coulda sworn that was in Brussels...

The Allied Command Transformation (ACT) is based in the former Allied Command Atlantic headquarters in Norfolk...

oh well...it would be cool to see flights opened up to international markets. They're right about Richmond though... It would have to be a lot cheaper than D.C. and have as many options to lure them to norfolk from d.c. for international flights imo.

any idea on when this could become a reality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man you love airports eh? I've never flown on a plane before and would love to try it one day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

haha yes, airports and skylines are my two loves!! I haven't actually flown out of Norfolk, but I have been to it many times to pick up/drop off family. I've been to some famous airports (chicago o'hare, kansai (the one that was built on the artificial island in Japan)) and I just love them!! haha. I think I have about half the posts on this thread! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NATO Headquarters? I coulda sworn that was in Brussels...

The Allied Command Transformation (ACT) is based in the former Allied Command Atlantic headquarters in Norfolk...

oh well...it would be cool to see flights opened up to international markets. They're right about Richmond though... It would have to be a lot cheaper than D.C. and have as many options to lure them to norfolk from d.c. for international flights imo.

any idea on when this could become a reality?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Military is very deep here. I've worked on these bases and seen alot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you could always build out into the water like they did in Japan!

oki...do you know how large of planes the runways at Norfolk can handle?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think they can handle "all types", I think even including a 747.

This is from the Norfolk Airport website:

"Can the Airport accommodate "large aircraft?"

Yes. Normally, the critical aircraft operation is take-off and the runway length required is based on: 1) weight of aircraft, 2) temperature, and 3) elevation. With the runway length and elevation being givens, the remaining factors, weight of aircraft and temperature, will be used to determine the distance the aircraft can fly non-stop. Each airline (aircraft operator) has different criteria regarding aircraft operations under conditions present at the time of flight. The type of aircraft currently serving the Airport include Boeing 737, Boeing 727, Douglas DC-9, McDonnell Douglas MD-80. Larger aircraft, such as Boeing 747s and Lockheed L-1011s, may be accommodated should the above-mentioned criteria be met.

Edited by okinawatyphoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites


From Boeing's website it appears that for normal landing ORF is not able to handle 747's or 777's. Its runways are definitely too short to handle the planes for take-off. As ORF's site alludes to, the airport can handle large planes in emergency situations as long as all excess weight has been jetisoned. I didn't check Airbus, but I'd imagine its large airplanes have the same runway requirements. BTW, for anyone bitter about the airport being landlocked (by 64, Lake Whitehurst, and VB Airport Industrial Park; blame Norfolk. That city wanted an airport within its borders and for it to remain there even when the new 747's and DC-10's were too large for it. Regional planners wanted to move the airport to the present site of the HR Business Airport. Anyway, it's too late now unless air travel predictions show large east coast airports reaching build-out capacity in the next 25-50 years.

All international means is that an airport has a customs agent, which Norfolk does. Norfolk also has international charter flights.

Building island airports is no easy task. Hong Kong's new airport and Kansai near Tokyo were colossal expenditures far beyond what it cost to build Denver International. Those two Asian airports also have suffered or are currently suffering from subsidence of the soil as it adjusts to the facility weight. Anyway, engineering, weather, and military considerations are the least of potential problems. The foremost one is that the Chesapeake is an environmentally sensitive body of water. Building tunnel islands is one thing, but a massive airport complex is something completely different. The best alternatives for a new airport, which isn't really needed, is in Isle of Wight to serve all of HR and even Richmond or at Oceana if that base is closed. With 2-12,000 foot runways, it can handle all current aircraft except the new Airbus. As it is, though, Raleigh is underutilized, Charlotte has room for expansion, and Pittsburgh should have lots of space available as USAir cuts back service there.

Edited by hoobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Boeing's website it appears that for normal landing ORF is not able to handle 747's or 777's.  Its runways are definitely too short to handle the planes for take-off.  As ORF's site alludes to, the airport can handle large planes in emergency situations as long as all excess weight has been jetisoned.  I didn't check Airbus, but I'd imagine its large airplanes have the same runway requirements.  BTW, for anyone bitter about the airport being landlocked (by 64, Lake Whitehurst, and VB Airport Industrial Park; blame Norfolk.  That city wanted an airport within its borders and for it to remain there even when the new 747's and DC-10's were too large for it.  Regional planners wanted to move the airport to the present site of the HR Business Airport.  Anyway, it's too late now unless air travel predictions show large east coast airports reaching build-out capacity in the next 25-50 years.

All international means is that an airport has a customs agent, which Norfolk does.  Norfolk also has international charter flights.

Building island airports is no easy task.  Hong Kong's new airport and Kansai near Tokyo were colossal expenditures far beyond what it cost to build Denver International.  Those two Asian airports also have suffered or are currently suffering from subsidence of the soil as it adjusts to the facility weight.  Anyway, engineering, weather, and military considerations are the least of potential problems.  The foremost one is that the Chesapeake is an environmentally sensitive body of water.  Building tunnel islands is one thing, but a massive airport complex is something completely different.  The best alternatives for a new airport, which isn't really needed, is in Isle of Wight to serve all of HR and even Richmond or at Oceana if that base is closed.  With 2-12,000 foot runways, it can handle all current aircraft except the new Airbus.  As it is, though, Raleigh is underutilized, Charlotte has room for expansion, and Pittsburgh should have lots of space available as USAir cuts back service there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can take off and land any plane at ORF. The problem comes when the length of flight comes into consideration. International flights need lots of full. When an large airplane is full of fuel it needs a considerable runway about 1,000 feet longer than orf presently has. Landing an international flight though after much fuel is gone takes only half the runway. Weight not size is the determining factor in landing strips, also elevation above sea level. ORF could easily solve an extension problem buy running the interstate underground through a tunnel and using the property where the highway presently sits for the required clearance effectively extending the runway to the desired result to handle almost every plane other than the new double decker airbus. It really is the only option they have, short of getting some kind of annex from VB, which will never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i doubt that they could annex the land from the city of Vabeach. I don't know how they would build the interstate underground. Where in the world would they divert the traffic to. I don't know if we could ever see international flights leave directly from here or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You would only run the highway underground that is needed to extend the runway, say from just before norview exit to just past the airport. Much like the big dig in Boston that replaced in elevated highway in downtown into a tunnel system. Ours would never have to be that extensive though. Just enough to extend the runway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would only run the highway underground that is needed to extend the runway, say from just before norview exit to just past the airport.  Much like the big dig in Boston that replaced in elevated highway in downtown into a tunnel system.  Ours would never have to be that extensive though.  Just enough to extend the runway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wonder if they did extend a little bit in the lake would that help at all. It wouldn't be a problem in Little Creek wasn't sitting there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if they did extend a little bit in the lake would that help at all. It wouldn't be a problem in Little Creek wasn't sitting there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe part of the lake was actually already filled in where the present runway sits and the option for the new runway would be parrallel to that which would require more of the lake to be infilled. If you extended the runway there would be no inlet left which would be an environmental nightmare, so some say. As far as I'm concerned fill the whole thing up and lets get some international flights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe part of the lake was actually already filled in where the present runway sits and the option for the new runway would be parrallel to that which would require more of the lake to be infilled.  If you extended the runway there would be no inlet left which would be an environmental nightmare, so some say.  As far as I'm concerned fill the whole thing up and lets get some international flights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't that lake a man made lake? I'm trying to envision what you are saying about the tunnel under the runway issue. What I'm saying is when they are building it where do they divert traffic to while the tunnel is being built?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that lake a man made lake? I'm trying to envision what you are saying about the tunnel under the runway issue. What I'm saying is when they are building it where do they divert traffic to while the tunnel is being built?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It would be a definate bottle neck. You would have to shut down half the highway at a time and do half at a time. It would definately be a nightmare. After looking at a map, shore drive would be a serious problem with an extension also. You really have no room to extend the runway towards shore drive. The only options are to pick up and leave, which will never happen, extend the runway by tunneling the interstate, or working with VB to call it Norfolk_Virginia Beach International and have the airport condemn land above Northampton and between Diamond springs road. This is the only way to get a two mile runway which is needed for large planes flying international.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Condemn the highly lucrative Airport Industrial Park? Sure, VB will jump on that just to get a couple international flights. VB is trying to expand that park by buying out Burton Station residents. Bury 64 in a tunnel to extend the runway? That'll cost at least a billion, likely more. The Big Dig was plagued by cost over-runs. Such monumental projects are not cheap. It would be probably cost the same or cost less to build a new airport in western Tidewater. The only reasonable option is to fill the man-made Lake Whitehurst, however even that has its problems since Little Creek stands in the way and the Whitehurst is a drinking water source for the City of Norfolk.

If everyone remembers, Norfolk did have international flights to Toronto via Air Canada. Unless ORF becomes a hub, which in its present location it will not, there is no case to be made for trans-Atlantic flights. The only international flights that appear reasonable given market conditions would be a return of flights to Toronto with additional service to Montreal as well as possible flights to Mexico, Puetro Rico, and/or Bermuda. And the current facilities can support planes that can fly to those destinations.

Edited by hoobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.