Fucking with a good thing

 

Explain again why they want to mess with this functionality?

 

 

Notice how the Leader this weekend completely avoided asking “The Cranky Flier” what he thought of the Burbank Airport? You’d think it would have been a major question of interest.

Here’s a great example of the prevailing opinion:

A love letter to Burbank’s Bob Hope Airport

Dear Bob,

Let’s put aside all of the typical holiday travel hysteria. I want to take a moment to tell you how much I appreciate you—and I mean in a way that I thought I could never feel about an airport. Are you even a real airport? You always struck me as a carpeted small town bus stop that happens to accommodate planes. But that’s exactly why I love you.

You’ve never experienced air travel yourself, so let me summarize: it’s terrible. The wonder of throttling through the stratosphere in an aluminum tube is quickly worn down by the traffic, lines and poke-and-prod security screenings that plague airports. But you—I can stroll up to your charmingly stumpy terminal less than an hour before my flight and never break a sweat. You’re so casual, you don’t even use jetways. No, you’re old school California cool, a time warp where you can still get onto a plane directly from a tarmac surrounded by mountains and palm trees. There are only 14 gates split between your two terminals; unless double parking planes becomes a thing, you just can’t become overcrowded.

I know you’re going through a bit of an identity crisis right now. Where’s Burbank? Who’s Bob Hope? He’s—he’s dead, right? Apparently, enough people are beginning to ask these questions to make you consider changing your name back to Hollywood-Burbank Airport. Plus, you’re flying fewer departures—I’m a bit miffed that my go-to 7am JetBlue is gone—and passenger boardings are down.

The thing is, I like you because you have under two million passengers every year—a comfortable 30 million fewer than LAX. You offer an oddly compelling reason to pay more for a flight, just to avoid the stress of LAX. And the trip to get to you? No “shortcuts” through oil fields needed. Sure, the trip to the Valley can admittedly be a grind on the 5, but it’s nothing compared to the horseshoe-shaped automotive hell that awaits at LAX. You’re better than LAX in almost every way. And, if we can get intimate for a moment: you’re OK with rear boarding.

Many thanks,

Michael

These Burbank boosters and their friends are total and complete morons. That’s when they’re not lying about the thing for business purposes. Institutional arrogance and recklessness always leads the way in this town.

Again, just look around. Like what you see?

Think about how it got there.

 

 
 

Advertisements

12 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

12 responses to “Fucking with a good thing

  1. Anonymous 3

    “There are only 14 gates split between your two terminals; unless double parking planes becomes a thing, you just can’t become overcrowded.”

    14 gates is 14 gates.

    “And the trip to get to you? No “shortcuts” through oil fields needed.”

    That’s not going to change with a new terminal.

    “Plus, you’re flying fewer departures—I’m a bit miffed that my go-to 7am JetBlue is gone—and passenger boardings are down.”

    The old terminal is not going to correct any of that.

    Sorry that logic defeats you, Jimmy. Now tell me to fuck off and you will have done your job, such as it is.

    • semichorus

      Not sure where these quotes are coming from, but they’re hardly authoritative. The number of flights is the issue, gates are the least of the problem; it would be extremely easy to expand a “replacement” terminal with only two (2) Burbank commissioners (why not three?); there will be no more Measure B oversight protections if this thing passes in November; the new terminal will not have the drop-off ease of the current facility (who’s fooling whom on that one?); and if this replacement scheme isn’t that big a deal use-wise and facility-wise as the claim is apparently being made here, why make the change at all?

      So…

      No new terminal. It’s not needed, it opens up a big can of worms that we’ve been able to avoid for the last 40 years, and small is always beautiful.

      Plus, most people LOVE what we have now. Which is a big, BIG problem for the boosters to get around.

      Btw, what happened to that little CURFEW they were talking about so recently as an inducement…..

      • Anonymous 3

        The quotes all come from the letter you published above.

        Duh.

        As for the curfew, when was the last you heard about it? A year? It won’t figure in the ballot statements. So chill on that.

        The new terminal is a done deal. That is what Gordon is being told by the NIBMY activists.

        And why would a new terminal have less drop off ease than the current one? Frankly the current terminal is not wonderful or a model of drop off ease. Other terminals exist that are as good or better.

        • semichorus

          Oh yeah, that guy. Unlike the City of Burbank censorship site, I’ll print anything.

          I’m not sure what your point was in citing them, but regardless, we don’t need a new “terminal.”

          • Anonymous 3

            “I’ll print anything.” The most honest statement I’ve ever seen from you. By a very long shot.

            YOU cited this Michael guy as if his words were gospel. I showed you how much of what he wrote either contradicted your argument or was easy to shoot down.

            Yes to the new terminal. Which is GONNA happen.

            • semichorus

              Nothing in his piece contradicted my argument or was easy to shoot down. He’s a slow growth guy.

              Nice try on the defamation though. Just keep repeating the innuendo and character-type insinuations and maybe they’ll come true.

              It must frustrate the hell out of you that I’m not right wing. It makes the red herrings that much harder to come by, I know.

        • Anonymous

          A3 name one airport that’s easier to use.

      • DixieFlyer

        Let’s not forget the farcical trip to Washington, D.C.

        Dweebs from Hawthorne fly to Wash to “meet” more dweebs from Glendale, Burbank and Pasadena?

        What a farce.

        Many of us asked for a curfew when Lockheed was the Owner.

        The FAA got pissed, then Lockheed put the Airport up for sale.

        FAA demanded that Burbank “partner-up with Pasadena & Glendale.

        Those two Cities have jerked-off the residents of Los Angeles & Burbank ever since with one scheme after another.

        Save the Hollywood-Burbank Airport.

        Save the Public Money.

        Stop the farce.

        And start telling the TRUTH while their at it.

        • semichorus

          I love how this “curfew” — once a big selling point for a new “replacement terminal” — if not THE selling point — is now being ignored as inconsequential. Like who cares.

          Assholes.

          None of these boosters can come up with one good reason why we need a new airport. And so they dissemble. Or call it a “done deal.”

          • Anonymous 3

            It IS a done deal. It is not the “boosters” that say so. It is the anti-growth, NIMBY types telling Gordon that. Gordon has been repeating it.

            See you in November.

            • semichorus

              Not so sure about that. But keep repeating this substitute for argument. It’s all you boosters have got, I know.

              “Done deal!”

Leave a Reply- (comments take a while to appear)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s