[go: nahoru, domu]

Jump to content

Talk:Sacramento International Airport

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Airport FAA Diagram

[edit]

It appears the FAA Diagram is outdated.RicHicks (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures?

[edit]

We need some pictures of this airport. Its a major airport in California with no pictures, thats a shame! Someone needs to get on this ASAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.209.44 (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Odd how it's called an international airport. The only out-of-US destination it goes to is Mexico. 205.174.22.28 23:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, since it goes to Mexico, it is OK to use the International in its title. Actually many airports have International in the name and have no passengers services at all. --Mrskippy 07:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention on-again, off-again rumors of flights to Vancouver(though I don't remember which airline)... Ranma9617 06:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YVR Pre-Clearance

[edit]

Since there is pre-clearance for USA Customs in Vancouver, the Air Canada Flights will not be arriving at International Arrivals

Picture

[edit]

Can we get a picture of the airport up? Does anybody own one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Likemic05 (talkcontribs) 01:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airline market share

[edit]

The source cited by user 68.4.192.9 (from the edit of 18:38, 10 February 2008) for the subject paragraph supports the paragraph's first sentence, but it does not support the next two sentences. Those sentences refer to United Express, Delta Connection, and US Airways Express, which are not listed in the source document. The cited document shows all commuter airlines grouped together, so if there is separate documentation with the data broken out for those airlines, then we need to see that citation. Also, the source document does not seem to support the percentages shown in the 2nd & 3rd sentences of the subject paragraph. --Rich Janis (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the source: http://www.sacairports.org/int/about/stats/December%2007%20Internet.pdf Scroll to page 4 of the document where it breaks down the commuter airlines by their operator and brand. It shows the amount of passengers that flew ASA/ Delta Connection, Expressjet for Delta Connection, Mesa Airlines for US Airways Express, and Skywest for United Express and Delta Connection each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.192.9 (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sacramento Intergalactic Airport

[edit]

Regarding the comments above from 2006, someone should find the Sacramento Bee columns that called it "Sacramento Intergalactic Airport". I'm pretty sure it was when they renamed it from Sacramento Metro, and that the argument was that calling it "Intergalactic" made as much since as "International" because, at the time, expecting international flights was not realistic. See this Google search and these Usenet threads: [1] [2] Jason McHuff (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First west coast airport to see Concorde?

[edit]

"On June 24, 1988, it became the first airport on the west coast to host a Concorde"

This naturally sounds crazy, tho I can't disprove it offhand. Didn't Concorde visit SFO on one occasion well before that? It definitely appeared at OAK, but dunno if it was before 1988. Likely some Southern Calif airport as well? Tim Zukas (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that Concorde visited SFO and LAX in October 1974, before entering service, and stopped at OAK and ONT on charter flights in 1986 (and maybe later). Tim Zukas (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sacramento International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self-funded

[edit]

According to this source, the airport is a self-funded branch of the Sacramento County government. Any objections to adding this to the lead?Pistongrinder (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with you adding it, but the one thing that I want to point out is that quite a few airports are self funded so it may not be the most notable thing in the world. KDTW Flyer (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'll leave it alone. Just a case of me reading a recent article and thinking there's something there in terms of Wiki-worthiness that really isn't. Cheers! Pistongrinder (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Picture

[edit]

I think that we should use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sacramento_Airport,_Sacramento,_California_LCCN2013633188.tif instead of the current interior picture for the infobox.

I fly into this airport sometimes and the exterior is definitely more characteristic of the airport than the central escalators. Are there any issues with using this image over the current interior one? Miniland1333 (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction paragraph

[edit]

Is there any suggestions in adding more relevant information to the introduction where it does not sound like it is a marketing or an advertisement from the tourism board? Dragondt (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]