There's an airport diagram at http://www.airnav.com/airport/KSNA of SNA. It appears that they do have to cross the runway if they are taking off from 19R. Click on the diagram for a larger view David R > I've also heard to get to the runway that airliners use as SNA, they > have to cross the other runway; the one airliners cannot use. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Montano [mailto:mmontano@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 5:01 AM > Subject: Re: Worst Airfield Config > > SNA's other problem is it's location. > > Perpendicular to the ocean, and a bunch of NIMBYs who live under the > departure path. It requires approaches from over the smoggy land, and > some rocket fueled departures to quickly gain altitude. > > Did an Alaskan 737 out of there and the pilots do warn you about what > is about to happen. > > The stand on the brakes. > > Push the engines wide open. > > Accelerate, rotate, approach the maximum angle of attack up to about > 3,000 feet and then cut the throttle back to just above idle as the > plane passes over the the homes of folks who moved there AFTER the > airport was built. > > Otherwise I'd nominate ORD for runway config (so many intersecting > runways) and LGA/DCA for "nice airport" but "bad location." > > Matthew > > On Jun 8, 2004, at 8:32 AM, damiross2@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > SNA has 2 runways: > > 1L/19R is 5701 feet long > > 1R/19L is 2887 feet long > > > > While the larger aircraft obviously can't use 1R/19L, it does take > > some pressure off of 1L/19R by separting smaller general aviation > > aircraft from the longer runway. > > > > David R > > > > > >> At 03:13 PM 6/7/2004 -0700, Clay Wardlow wrote: > >>> Hello everyone, > >>> > >>> What's everyone's opinion as to the (worst) airfield configuration > >>> for a > >>> major airport? > >>> > >>> I've heard that SNA and BOS are pretty bad. Where else do you all > >>> think? > >> > >> I'm not particularly familiar with BOS. SNA has the same limitations > >> as any > >> single runway airport; you could just as easily name LGW, London > >> Gatwick, > >> which probably gets more traffic. > >> > >> Personally, I'd use SFO, San Francisco International, as an example > >> of "how > >> not to do it." Yes, it has two sets of parallel runways -- but > >> they're too > >> close together for dual operations in ILS conditions. Maybe they were > >> far > >> enough apart for contemporary planes when the runways were built, but > >> now > >> they're an embarrassment. > >> > >>> Clay - SEA > >> > >> Nick (IAD)