The Pitkin Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously Wednesday to approve the final environmental analysis (EA) for the proposed quarter-billion-dollar, two-pronged expansion of the Aspen Airport. The two major components of the proposed expansion are an expanded runway and a new terminal building.

According to the EA, the plan, culled from 18 options, is to shift the airport’s lone runway 80 feet to the west, widening it to 150 feet and strengthening it to allow up to 150,000 pounds of landing weight.

http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/177283

Thank you for sharing. After reading this it seems like the primary impetus for the runway portion of this project is that the CRJ-700 has a limited lifespan and that newer aircraft will require these changes. But I don't see anything that states what kind of newer aircraft they are designing for. Are they thinking the C-Series / E170/190 / MRJ? Or, hold onto your $5,000 fur stetson... 737/A320???? No further extension of the runway... which of these aircraft could depart from an 8,000 ft. runway at 7,820 ft. elevation with mountains to clear???

The terminal, although fine and comfortable during most of the year, during peak season(s), it is a cramped mad house. Aspen desperately needs a new terminal complex!

United787 wrote:

Thank you for sharing. After reading this it seems like the primary impetus for the runway portion of this project is that the CRJ-700 has a limited lifespan and that newer aircraft will require these changes. But I don't see anything that states what kind of newer aircraft they are designing for. Are they thinking the C-Series / E170/190 / MRJ? Or, hold onto your $5,000 fur stetson... 737/A320???? No further extension of the runway... which of these aircraft could depart from an 8,000 ft. runway at 7,820 ft. elevation with mountains to clear???

The terminal, although fine and comfortable during most of the year, during peak season(s), it is a cramped mad house. Aspen desperately needs a new terminal complex!

I doubt you could safely put a mainline jet into there . More like out of there.

Can anyone clarify what aircraft fall under the 150,000 lb weight limit? ASE will always be a challenging airport from an operational perspective, but it seems like the airport is already reaping the benefits of a longer runway. I'd be interested to know if WN could get a 73G in there, for example...

SurfandSnow wrote:

Can anyone clarify what aircraft fall under the 150,000 lb weight limit?

I am sure there will be some experts with better info but a quick search on Wikipedia shows that these are under that limit:

E175-E2 - 98,767
E190-E2 - 123,900
E195-E2 - 135,584
CS100 - 134,000 lbs
CS300 - 149,000 (barely)
MRJ70 - 88,626
MRJ90 - 94,358
SSJ 100/95 - 101,150
SSJ 100/95LR - 109,020
ARJ21-700 - 95,900 just for laughs
ARJ21-900 - 104,019

Out of Production
B736 - 144,500
A318 - 150,000

The A320neo and 737 MAX families are all overweight!

United787 wrote:

Thank you for sharing. After reading this it seems like the primary impetus for the runway portion of this project is that the CRJ-700 has a limited lifespan and that newer aircraft will require these changes. But I don't see anything that states what kind of newer aircraft they are designing for. Are they thinking the C-Series / E170/190 / MRJ? Or, hold onto your $5,000 fur stetson... 737/A320???? No further extension of the runway... which of these aircraft could depart from an 8,000 ft. runway at 7,820 ft. elevation with mountains to clear???

The terminal, although fine and comfortable during most of the year, during peak season(s), it is a cramped mad house. Aspen desperately needs a new terminal complex!

The airport did future air service study in 2014 and identified which aircraft are performance capable to operate out of ASE and mentioned E175-E2, E190-E2, E195-E2, CS100 and CS300. And then later a Q&A mentions if a 737 would be capable of operating out of ASE:

— If we make the recommended runway improvements will 737s ever be
able to land here?
— Answer: We don’t know. Our mountainous terrain and altitude have
historically limited the types of aircraft capable of operating here. Aircraft
with wingspans up to 118’ will be allowed to use the runway, but whether
this sized aircraft can meet stringent air carrier safety standards to operate
here remains to be seen. This will be studied in the EA.

http://www.aspenairport.com/sites/default/files/uploads/files/ASEairsrvstudyPhIIIBOCC12-16-14FINAL.pdf

The problem with Aspen is engine-out procedures for both landing and departing. That is why the BAe 146 was the ONLY commercial jet allowed in there for the longest time, then of course the Dornier 328 jet.

United787 wrote:

The A320neo and 737 MAX families are all overweight!

The A319 should be able to, provided it doesn't take off at MTOW.

With the 150,000 lb max landing weight limit a319 /a320 CEO /a320 NEO all fit under 150k

The limit will be go around climb limit. Doesn’t matter what the runway landing limit is.

Procedure for single engine /engine failure inside the final approach fix is to land / get to the runway at all costs/crash on the runway if you have to - single engine go around isn’t possible after the FAF.

United787 wrote:

SurfandSnow wrote:

Can anyone clarify what aircraft fall under the 150,000 lb weight limit?

I am sure there will be some experts with better info but a quick search on Wikipedia shows that these are under that limit:

E175-E2 - 98,767
E190-E2 - 123,900
E195-E2 - 135,584
CS100 - 134,000 lbs
CS300 - 149,000 (barely)
MRJ70 - 88,626
MRJ90 - 94,358
SSJ 100/95 - 101,150
SSJ 100/95LR - 109,020
ARJ21-700 - 95,900 just for laughs
ARJ21-900 - 104,019

Out of Production
B736 - 144,500
A318 - 150,000

The A320neo and 737 MAX families are all overweight!

Remember also. Just because it can T-O at 150000 lb. does not mean they will fly it to a destination requiring that weight.

After googling the aspen airport master plan, you get access to some of the documents that are referenced in the article.

Looks like they’re relocating the runway so that the airport can accommodate category D-III aircraft, which means a wingspan not greater than 118 ft, which includes 737/320/md-80 aircraft, but not 757/767 aircraft, but the report says they’re looking for replacement regional aircraft.

Current wingspan is limited to 95 ft, so the runway relocation and widening would allow wider wingspan aircraft to utilize the airport.

I would suspect this is to also allow bigger personal/corporate jets including those based on the commercial models listed.

Woodreau wrote:

With the 150,000 lb max landing weight limit a319 /a320 CEO /a320 NEO all fit under 150k
The limit will be go around climb limit. Doesn’t matter what the runway landing limit is.
Procedure for single engine /engine failure inside the final approach fix is to land / get to the runway at all costs/crash on the runway if you have to - single engine go around isn’t possible after the FAF.

Twin engine passenger aircraft fly in and out of there multiple times a day, every day of the year. I can't imagine that Aspen is any worse than Paro, or Innesbruck, or any other airport surrounded by high terrain where the A319 flies in and out of. I don't think it's a coincidence that Drukair and Bhutan Airlines have chosen the A319 for their fleets.
Now if you're saying that airlines will not want to take the risk, now that's a different discussion.

airbazar wrote:

Woodreau wrote:

With the 150,000 lb max landing weight limit a319 /a320 CEO /a320 NEO all fit under 150k
The limit will be go around climb limit. Doesn’t matter what the runway landing limit is.
Procedure for single engine /engine failure inside the final approach fix is to land / get to the runway at all costs/crash on the runway if you have to - single engine go around isn’t possible after the FAF.

Twin engine passenger aircraft fly in and out of there multiple times a day, every day of the year. I can't imagine that Aspen is any worse than Paro, or Innesbruck, or any other airport surrounded by high terrain where the A319 flies in and out of. I don't think it's a coincidence that Drukair and Bhutan Airlines have chosen the A319 for their fleets.
Now if you're saying that airlines will not want to take the risk, now that's a different discussion.

Difference being that ASE is a one way in, one way out airport. It's not just the go around but the SHARP right turn required if going missed.

NetJets has a special approach that only they're allowed to utilize going into ASE. It gets them significantly closer to the runway than the public approaches, but the missed approach requires a climb gradient in excess of 1000'/NM.... at over 8000MSL. Combine that with a potential tail wind, remember one way in one way out, and the performance required for this airport is an immense challenge.

Peace

The empty weight of a 73G is 83,000lbs. The short hop from Aspen to DEN should be doable with a lightly loaded 73G. I wonder if UA could maybe do something like offer to pick up folks bags from their hotels the night before and truck them to DEN.