← Back to Squawk list
  • 19

California challenges San Bernardino air cargo facility used by Amazon

Submitted
State argues FAA minimized environmental impact in greenlighting project. (www.freightwaves.com) More...

Eric Kulisch
News junkiePromoter

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


DaveCooke
Dave Cooke 1
Sounds like Cali gov’t mafia is shaking down a proven money maker. The Godfather, Part 6 ?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
gregoryheld
Greg Held 1
How do I read the article with out singing up for anything
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
ekulisch
Eric Kulisch 3
Not sure. sign up is free, but asks for a bit of info. Or try a different browser.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sgbelverta
sharon bias 1
This part of CA has lousy air. It has always had lousy air. The airport really isn't the problem. It's the pollution from all the big rigs that are the problem. All of those truck have to drive 90 miles from the LA ports to San Bernardino in traffic moving about 10 mph much of the time. The FAA approved the project because there really wasn't an environmental issue with the airport, per se. The State is saying, wait, you have to look at the whole scope of the project. Both are right, and both are wrong.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
ekulisch
Eric Kulisch 1
Sharon, your analysis sounds right. It's probably all the trucks going in to service the Amazon hub, more so than the planes that is the concern. I think, since the airport is new, they are trying to leverage the permission to build to get more clean truck concessions, clean diesel, EV charging, etc.etc.,
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
punkrawk78
Silent Bob 4
They probably just forgot to put the Prop 65 warning label on it: Warning, this facility contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
jwmson
jwmson 7
Were I to post my true opinion of Califailure's government, I would be kicked off this site.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
linbb
linbb 1
Really? Only in CA could this happen so what now? Rip it down and move it where? Seems that is an industrial area and yes polution will be higher there. Bet all the jobs there are paying ok and people who live close are enjoying employment. STUPID
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
sgbelverta
sharon bias 1
Sacramento would have been a good choice, and I say that not just because I live here. There are 2 retired Air Force bases, with super long runways available. Both have available space to build jumbo warehouses. There is decent freeway access as I-5 and I-80 meet here. The air quality is good most days. There is great rail access, both north/south and east/west. And mostly because the Port of Oakland is less than 60 miles away with traffic congestion only during peak commute periods. A truck could go from Oakland to Sacramento and return in the same amount of time it would take a truck to get from LA to San Bernardino.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ekulisch
Eric Kulisch 1
That's very interesting, Sharon. Informative observation and would apply to many cargo operations. But the Amazon air hub isn't really for collecting goods coming from import warehouses. Amazon's air network is to move parcels between fulfillment centers and to markets, so I don't think it's the type of facility that would need connections to the ports and rail. . . Amazon has big import warehouses that benefit from that proximity, but the air hub is a different network, operation. Hope that makes sense.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
stansdds
Michael Stansfield 4
Not just California, but NY, specifically NYC as well. Amazon wanted to build a new facility in NYC, but a certain, prominent, congresswoman who represents that district managed to squash the idea.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
linbb
linbb 2
And I wonder how those who thought there would be more jobs think about it? Most of those areas selected to build in have long been industrial areas anyway. Next to railroads is where many started because of them not because of race.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ekulisch
Eric Kulisch 2
Some of the community groups in 2020 wanted to get guarantees from the developer/Amazon for local hiring and wages. I don't know how that ended up, but they wanted those benefits in addition to the pollution controls.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ekulisch
Eric Kulisch 5
Good points. I suspect they won't close it, if they can, but want to impose more conditions to reduce pollution, like require more clean diesel or EV trucks, etc.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
ukusapkm07201942
Paul Miller 3
Yes, what you say is right Sir, Sad that just when a company arrives and offers jobs and lets people at least make a living? and then the State wants to close it down just because of some rules it sees as being how THEY want everything to be.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Login

Forgot password?
Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Join FlightAware
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss