I remember when a few civic leaders pushed to have the convention center in downtown San Jose named after former mayor Tom McEnery, even though he was still alive (and still is). Then came a train station that had to have the name of another still-living public figure, Rod Diridon. What came next? The San Jose International Airport’s name wasn’t good enough, so these same civic leaders (who like their own names on other buildings in surrounding communities) pushed to have our then quaint airport named after Norman Y. Mineta. Certainly a fine and honest man, and also very much alive.
There are many potential problems with naming buildings after living individuals. First of all, things change, people change. People could commit moral or criminal offenses, and then bring shame upon the city due to their name being on major infrastructure. Thank goodness none of the above have ever come close to shaming themselves or the community. But errant behavior by politicians is not uncommon. Why take the risk?
Another problem can arise when changing circumstances suggest a new and different name might better serve the community. The case in point being the current debate over including “Silicon Valley” in the San Jose Airport’s name for basic and intelligent marketing purposes.
The Silicon Valley/San Jose International Airport has the marketing edge and identifying geographic significance needed for our area and our ability to recruit more international airlines. But because Mr. Mineta is still alive, we risk offending him and his accomplishments by removing his name from the facility.
We cannot simply commission a twenty-foot bronze statue at the entrance to the airport in his honor, and change the name to the geographically correct Silicon Valley / San Jose International Airport. Or can we? What then, does a city do? We can hope that Mr. Mineta calls and makes the suggestion himself. That certainly would be civic minded of him. In my opinion, I hope he does just that. Then the city could commission that great statue at the entrance to the airport. It’s the honorable thing to do.
David Cohen is the former publisher of Silicon Valley Community Newspapers and Metro.
Drop both San Jose and Mineta names from too ling cumbersome airport name call airport – Silicon Valley International Airport (SVI )
SVI is used by San Vicente Airport in Columbia.
Changing the name should not affect the San Jose’s airport code of SJC. The name change to Mineta did not change it then either. Name change or not, SJC would remain ours until changed by a higher regulatory authority.
I agree with the suggestion that it be renamed Silicon Valley International Airport.
I agree too. It just sounds right.
I was at the council meeting when it was named MINETA. I spoke against it because I do not think any landmarks should be named for a living person.
The example I gave was would we want the Golden Gate bridge named the Willie Brown bridge? Shirakawa then said don’t be wishy washy let’s vote and they did at that point.
No shame? Mineta as Bush’s transportation scapegoat tried to zero Amtrak funding though he did not believe in it himself, because Bush had the kibosh on him. Diridon not shame? Ha! Diridon has become synonymous with fecal matter on the Peninsula, where he continues to insult the cities that sued his former High Speed Authority which he himself got dumped from by Arnold while bigger scum Pringle remained. Just watch video on YouTube of Dirdon promising at Palo Alto city council meeting Palo Alto would be fully involved in planning, then just months later saying the route had already been decided and Palo Alto could not change that. Diridon shameful man, and bring shame upon the rail depot that mistakenly bears his name.
Jay Tulock, Vacaville
How about “PASSENGER LOADS ARE DOWN AND WE OVER SPENT ON AN OUTDATED AIRPORT WITH A RUNWAY SO SHORT LARGE JETS AND INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS CAN’T LAND HERE SOUTHWEST AIRLINES AIRPORT”.
That’s the short version. The long version would also add the fact that there are no people movers nor nonstop appealing destinations to serve the people of this city.
Really! Has this aluminum monstrosity that resembles every other city structure built over the past few years made your air travel experience any better?
Silicon Valley Airport???? It sounds horrible, just as it does on the side of city vehicles. Let some of these “SIlicon Valley” companies put there name to it as arenas and stadiums across the country have.
By the way the concrete parking structure dominates the airport skyline.
Unbelievable!
The runways at SJC are 11,000 feet long, hardly too short for international flights. It was American’s decision to eliminate its SJC hub that cost us the NRT flights. If the economy ever gets better, and if Boeing ever manages to deliver any 787s, you might see long distance international flights return to SJC some day.
On the naming topic, it bugs me any time a public facility is named after somebody who has not died yet.
You have former LA mayor Tom Bradley to thank for this unfortunate trend, naming LAX’s “new” international the “Tom Bradley Terminal” back in the 1980s.
Often it does not catch on. Former OAK Mayor Lionel Wilson pulled the same nonsense on OAK terminal 2. I don’t know if anyone other than civic types or bureaucrats actually call it that.
For that matter, I don’t think anyone other than civic types or bureaucrats call SJC “Norman Mineta International” either.
“By the way the concrete parking structure dominates the airport skyline.”
I flew out of the new terminal a few weeks ago for the first time. I drove around and around trying to find the ramp to take me up to the upper levels to park. Finally I asked the exit attendant how to get up top. The reply, “All the upper floors are for rental cars”. Yep, that huge parking structure is almost entirely rental cars, not public parking. I parked south of the structure out in the open after all. I was flabbergasted that all that money spent on a parking garage and it is barely used by the flying customer.
I wanted to add that if this “Silicon Valley Airpot” does stick. It would make sense to drape the exterior with every high tech company willing to advertise on the exterior and interior of the building. That would truly define the Airport. As it is now, I don’t see how the structure has any high tech or Silicon Valley facet, both functionally and physically. There is nothing in san Jose that a tourist would travel across the country to see or anything that a business traveler would remember the airport by.
While were at it, let’s sale some advertising space on these police cars and fire trucks. They are the most visible aspect of public safety and a small add certainly won’t add plight to an aging police and fire fleet.
Dionne Warwick asked the same question in 1968 that we are still asking today.
“Do you know the way to San Jose?”
I wonder if all of the naysayers actually – you know – *travel*?!? Between business ane leisure, I fly ~30 times a year. I’ve discovered that if traffic on Hedding is light <snark>, I can get from home to sitting at the far gates in Terminal B in 43 minutes, including parking in the garage. Long-term parking adds about 10 minutes more.
By contrast, my last trip and my next trip will both, out of necessity, be through SFO. There’s no way I can get through security in 43 minutes there, not even considering the trip up 280, having a friend have to make the drive up and back – it just doesn’t compare.
I couldn’t care less what they call it. It’s a nice airport, and will give Portland (PDX – my longtime favorite) a run for its money.
It’s not the airport’s fault that there’s just not that much here to *see*. As Area 51 noted, there’s just not much here that a tourist would come to see. For frequent travelers, though, it’s so valuable to have it here.
How about:
10th largest city in america with a boring city center and an inferiority complex Airport.
Fits and has a ring to it.
We used to be Valley of the Hearts Delight which is much more appealing and lasting than Silicon Valley will ever be – but we paved it over for affordable housing (can you imagine any of those 1,000 unit “Villa de Crapo” every being as nice as an orchard in Spring?) and union controlled politics that have left us really in debt.
What international flights? Stuck between two freeways no long distant big planes can land here despite the fact that we have to keep our city runt sized which matches our leadership thinking to keep an outdated airport in place and for what? The new terminal is pearls on swine. Lets spend a few million $ on a naming contest – that would give us pizzazz.
Would you knock off this “no long distant big planes can land here” crap???
SJC’s runways are plenty long enough for international flights. Check the facts before spouting off at the mouth:
http://www.sjc.org/about/newsroom/AirportStats.pdf
“Two 11,000-foot runways are capable of handling aircraft serving any domestic or international
destination (Runway 30Right/12Left and Runway 30Left/12Right).”
Thank you.
The name of the airport should reflect both its location, and its contribution to society.
As I mentioned in another thread, let’s accurately, and honestly, call the airport;
“The Useless POS Wasting 1000 Acres While Negatively Impacting San Jose Development And Quality of Life In Silicon Valley Airport”
Some might consider such posts suggesting closure/relocation as “silly”, but consider the following:
1) Rising oil/fuel prices: Already they are forcing some airlines to cancel routes, raise fares and consolidate operations at major hubs (ala SFO). Fuel prices should keep rising from here on out. How would we ever expect to attract more airlines/routes, especially with SFO and OAK being so close?
2) Curfew: Seen as a hinderance to attracting international flights…PLEASE! Besides, ending the curfew shouldn’t even be on the table as it relates to quality of life in SJ. It’s not the citizens fault that SJ city forefathers decided to put the airport smack middle of the city.
3) Future high-speed rail: Despite a few crying NIMBY’s up the Peninsula, it will serve San Jose and San Francisco by 2020. When HSR is up in running along the Peninsula, it may make SFO a more convenient airport for many along the line. Take a train from (say) Mt. View to SFO or drive south to “Whatever it’s called” airport?
4) Future high-speed rail: Flights to Southern California make up the vast bulk flying out of SJC. What happens when HSR becomes more attractive for travellers going to SoCal from Silicon Valley/SJ? HSR could be the death knell for SJC post 2020.
No need to get into how SJC hinders downtown development and the vast opportunities for 1,000+ acres of central Silicon Valley real estate. Move it now? Perhaps not “now,” but whether it’s relocation to South County or consolidation at SFO, this is something future SJ leaders should seriously consider. A name? I’ll suggest simply “San Jose/Silicon Valley International (?) Airport.”
“Do you know the way to San Jose?” or care
No because people don’t care or want to go to San Jose since there is nothing there
Silicon Valley to most people and media is San Francisco, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Menlo Park etc not San Jose
If San Jose is “Capital of Silicon Valley” then why did President Obama meet in Woodside with 12 Silicon Valley chief executives, including Facebook’s and Apple’s founders ?
None of 12 Tech Elite live in San Jose and only 1 of 12 Cisco’s Chambers works in San Jose
San Jose need a new accurate city slogan
Obama convenes tech elite to talk innovation
President’s dinner includes Jobs, Zuckerberg, Ellison, Bartz, others
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-talks-rd-with-silicon-valley-elite-2011-02-18
“We cannot simply commission a twenty-foot bronze statue at the entrance to the airport in his honor”
Why not?
A twenty-foot bronze statue of a TSA goon groping a wheelchair bound grandmother would nicely commemorate Norm’s lunacidal dedication to political correctness.
SJC (or whatever it is called) should be mothballed. It has not earned a nickel since it’s inception and yet continues to be remodeled for millions of dollars. The responsibility of a City is to give service to it’s citizenry- for all intents and purposes the airport fails. The noise, inability to build upward, BILLIONS of dollars etc are not a good investment. All that money could fund public safety, libraries, community centers and infrastructure for decades.
The airport pays for itself through user fees. Check your airline ticket the next time you fly out of SJC. The money can’t be used for libraries or other general fund expenses, and not one dime of general fund money went into the airport’s renovation and expansion.
The debt service for the airport for FY2010-11 is $19.8 million.
For FY2011-12 40.2 million. There are not enough passengers in/out of SJC to keep this turd afloat.
And it is such a turd. Clearly a case of local politicians with smaller than usual reproductive organs bolstering their self-esteem. SJ is not SF… get over it!
SJ never will be SF due to small town minds running a large city. We close our airport at midnight so as not to offend people who live in the flight path. People who most likely bought their home knowing exactly where it was when they signed on the dotted line. We want a vibrant downtown but make doing business near impossible with regulations, taxes, and controls. We want good decision makers for politicians but routinely vote in amateurs and wannabees. We call our airport “
international” yet the only flights out of the country are a couple to Mexico. Yes, we are definitely not SF.
David,
I liked Scott Herhold’s tongue-in-cheek “Apple iPort”. Or was it?
You are correct in all that you say. Why SJ started naming structures after living creatures is beyond me. How about this for a good up to date title combining responsibilities and technology:
bi*********************************************************@sa*******.gov
/fat
I like Apple iPort too. As for a statue…It was really a metaphor for honoring the man somehow.
Norman Mineta International Airport l Silicon Valley
Or I like…
Silicon Valley International Airport
No need to change the SJC code…
Sell the name to the highest bidder.
How about “Google International Airport of San Jose”
Hugh Jardonn you are misinformed.
Is it possible for large and loaded aircraft to land in SJ, with passengers and fuel?
Yes.
Does the FAA and the airline industry make it a practice of landing such jets on a regional jet airfield? NO!
There is no room for error and the aircrafts can hardly make it over the fence. Do your research and you will see Mexicana would often use 727’s loaded down and they were deemed unsafe for a Wright Brothers size airfield.
SFO is designed to accommodate large passenger jets. This is why when a commercial “Heavy” jet encounters a problem and is diverted to the Bay, San Francisco is the destination.
San Jose also does not have the fire staff on hand to deal with such an event.
I’ll be more than happy to dispel any of your airport knowledge.
“Hugh Jardonn you are misinformed.”
As a general rule, I have found that most people who support aviation do not have the slightest idea of what they are talking about. If you want to hear fantasy and misinformation then talk to an aviation supporter.
As a general rule, I have found that people who make generalized, unsubstantiated smears against groups of people are uninformed at best and trolls at worst.
For the record, SJC once had flights to Tokyo/Narita, Paris and Taipei. 11,000 ft. runways are plenty long enough for all aircraft except the “Super Jumbo” Airbus A380.
Actually the limiting factor on A380 operations at SJC have more to do with runway/taxiway spacing/gate design.
see FAA’s advisory circular 150/5300-13
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150_5300_13.pdf
The A380 is in design group VI
Even 747s, which are design group V have special restrictions when operating at SJC. 747 flights here are rare, but they do occur. Two recent examples were a special Japan Airlines flight and the Frys Electronics 747SP operating special flights in support of NHL and SJ Ballet.
You guys are smoking crack.
American operated nonstop flights from San Jose to Tokyo for over a decade. The only reason that they’re gone is that the airline dropped its San Jose hub. There is no technical reason that the airport cannot support overseas flights.
OK genius, see this report from channel 5:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/02/02/mayor-reed-drums-up-mineta-san-jose-airport-business-in-japan/
tell me why the mayor is urging ANA to begin SJC-NRT flights? I think the mayor knows more about his airport than you do.
American operated nonstop flights from San Jose to Tokyo for over a decade.
Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done.
Why shouldn’t we have nonstop flights to Japan? The local economy needs all the help it can get.
I support the mayor on this one. We need to get local business travel going through SJC and off the freeways of San Mateo County.
All this talk of international flights out of SJC is jogging my memory. If I remember correctly, and this is not guaranteed, the international flights to Japan had to stop in Oakland to take on a full load of fuel. Whether this was before or after the runways were lengthend I do not remember. Probably before since the runways are now as long as at SFO.
Correct me if I am wrong here but even though San Jose built a new terminal, don’t they still utilize trucks to fuel airplanes? Many airports have upgraded to having fuel lines underground at the gates rather than drive up trucks and load fuel in that manner.
In March 1991, American Airlines introduced
flights to Tokyo’s Narita airport. This flight was originally operated with DC-10-30 aircraft that could not depart fully loaded from the then-8,900-foot runway 12R-30L. Although American made every effort to adjust loads by offloading cargo and maximizing fuel, on two occasions it was necessary to depart with partial fuel requiring a stop at nearby Oakland International Airport to top off. Once American introduced the MD-11 on this flight, and the airport extended Runway 12R-30L to 10,200 feet, the service settled down into a routine. Ultimately, the MD-11s were replaced by 777-200s which covered the flights until they were discontinued in 2006.
Naming things after living politicians is totally tacky and small minded, so I agree with the main post.
In a way, the naming pattern is an example of what’s gone wrong, we want to have instant results and instant recognition rather than the patience to let things develop over time.
As far as renaming the airport – if we go with a regional name, then how about making it a regional airport. In practice, it already serves as this, but it is operated as a department of the City of San Jose. How about spinning off the airport into a regional agency with governance from all the South Bay Cities who could share in planning, management and benefits. Seems like these times suggest thinking outside the box and regionalism is a logical way to preserve and enhance services.
Blair,
There were discussions years back before San Jose decided to sink a bunch of money into SJC. There was talk when Moffett was closing of all the cities getting together and refurbishing Moffett for a regional airport. Runway length was no problem nor was space. However, San Jose being shortsighted didn’t want to see their own airport turn into a puddle jumper facility.
First SJC tried to expand their cargo operations by adding space to the south end of the airport on the Hwy 87 side. Then they realized that nobody wanted to bring cargo into SJC so that changed. Then they allowed the Jet Center area to expand. After that they had the opportunity to buy the FMC property for pennies and turned it down. They could have rerouted Coleman Ave. and added almost all of the FMC property to the airport property. This would have allowed them space to be competitive in the cargo arena. Nevertheless, they squandered that opportunity as well. The problem is San Jose decision makers are short sighted and transient. Few people at the top are long term planners and even fewer stick around to see good decisions bear fruit. They have moved on to other pursuits.
“Civic Leaders?”…..what a crock. The good old boy network.
People are engaged when they have a voice. We already have to pay for an election every two years for city council. Take advantage of it and put more referendum items on the ballot. It gets people a little more excited.
So put the name decision up to the electorate. I’d say even make it multiple choice with five choices in the primary and the top two in the runoff.
Also – please don’t let politicians name things after other living politicians. Its tacky and shameful (either self-serving or implicit quid pro quo type stuff). God, if the city charter doesn’t specifically prohibit it, they’ll do any old dumb thing.
Here’s why the airport will never make money… the goons who play like Secret Service at the curbs. You can’t pick up a passenger without some of them threatening to toss you in jail. For what? You can’t pull up to curb. You can’t stop. You can’t drive by more than once. And yet… the next day, you can go there and find people parked at the curb, flashers going, security doing nothing. Selective enforcement is what it’s called. You catch the wrong goon, and you get a ticket or a threat.
I saw this at only one other airport… Las Vegas, where they actually have cameras that record how many times you drive by the passenger pick-up curb.
What a way to attract business…