FAA Goes after Chicago on Meigs

[Orval Fairbairn]

For what it is worth, I just received the following notice:



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


APA 35
October 1, 2004
Contact: Greg Martin or Tony Molinaro
Phone: 202-267-3883 or 847-294-7427

FAA Proposes Legal Action Against City of Chicago¹s Meigs Field Closure

WASHINGTON, DC * The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) today announced
that it is taking legal action over
the 2003 closure of Meigs Field which
could result in penalties against the
city of Chicago. The FAA is citing the
agency¹s regulatory responsibility to
preserve the national airspace system
and ensure the traveling public with
reasonable access to airports as the
basis for its action today.

The FAA is proposing a civil penalty
of $33,000, the legal maximum, against
the city and, separately, is
initiating an investigation into
possible violations by the city of its
federal grant assurances and its
airport sponsor obligations.

The $33,000 proposed civil penalty
stems from the city¹s failure to
provide the required 30-day notice to
the FAA of the deactivation of Meigs
Field. The notice requirement is
intended to allow the FAA to study
proposed actions that may affect the
national airspace system prior to the
actions being taken. According to FAA
regulations, a maximum penalty of
$1,100 per day can be assessed for a
violation of this type.

Additionally, the FAA has initiated an
investigation to determine whether the
city improperly diverted $1.5 million
in restricted airport revenues to pay
for demolishing the runway at Meigs
and for its conversion from an airport
into a city park. The city has 30
days to reply to the FAA on these
issues.

The FAA has held several discussions
with representatives of the city to
reach an informal resolution of the
issues, but it will now move forward
with these formal actions to obtain
additional facts. In addition to the
possibility of a civil penalty of
$33,000, the city of Chicago could be
required to return monies to the
O¹Hare Airport Development Fund.
Should the city refuse to return any
improperly diverted revenue to the
Fund, further sanctions are possible,
including a civil penalty of up to
three times the amount of the diverted
funds.

Gary Orpe
A79228
E690190
Certified Virus free by Ed Norton.
All are absolutely free.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/jrDrlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:


<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Jay Honeck]

Gee, $33K? About the price of a used Cherokee 140?

Big whoop. Ten parking meters on Wacker Drive make that in six months...

I'm heartened that the FAA is closing the door after the cows have escaped,
and sincerely hope that King Daley is quaking in his boots.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[C J Campbell]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>
> The FAA has held several discussions
> with representatives of the city to
> reach an informal resolution of the
> issues, but it will now move forward
> with these formal actions to obtain
> additional facts. In addition to the
> possibility of a civil penalty of
> $33,000, the city of Chicago could be
> required to return monies to the
> O¹Hare Airport Development Fund.
> Should the city refuse to return any
> improperly diverted revenue to the
> Fund, further sanctions are possible,
> including a civil penalty of up to
> three times the amount of the diverted
> funds.

The city should require Daley to pay these fines personally.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:FSm7d.303820$Fg5.269114@attbi_s53...
> Gee, $33K? About the price of a used Cherokee 140?
>
> Big whoop. Ten parking meters on Wacker Drive make that in six months...
>
> I'm heartened that the FAA is closing the door after the cows have
> escaped,
> and sincerely hope that King Daley is quaking in his boots.

You must have missed the part where Chicago could be on the hook for as much
as $6 million total (not counting the $33K penalty for violating the 30-day
notice requirement).

The 30-day notice requirement violation is a relatively minor infraction,
and as such wouldn't justify a very large penalty. Diverting funds
illegally is a much more egregious violation, and carries with it a much
greater penalty.

I think it's great news that the FAA is taking action against Chicago, and I
found nothing negative in the posted press release at all.

Pete

[Dave Stadt]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:FSm7d.303820$Fg5.269114@attbi_s53...
> > Gee, $33K? About the price of a used Cherokee 140?
> >
> > Big whoop. Ten parking meters on Wacker Drive make that in six
months...
> >
> > I'm heartened that the FAA is closing the door after the cows have
> > escaped,
> > and sincerely hope that King Daley is quaking in his boots.
>
> You must have missed the part where Chicago could be on the hook for as
much
> as $6 million total (not counting the $33K penalty for violating the
30-day
> notice requirement).
>
> The 30-day notice requirement violation is a relatively minor infraction,
> and as such wouldn't justify a very large penalty. Diverting funds
> illegally is a much more egregious violation, and carries with it a much
> greater penalty.
>
> I think it's great news that the FAA is taking action against Chicago, and
I
> found nothing negative in the posted press release at all.
>
> Pete


Like any of it is going to stick. $33K, $1.5 Million or $6 million its all
peanuts to the city of chicago. Where else can a mayor buy his wife a
lakefront park for that kind of money?

[G.R. Patterson III]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
> For what it is worth, I just received the following notice:

YEEEEEEEEEEHHHAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[William W. Plummer]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> For what it is worth, I just received the following notice:
>
>
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
>
> APA 35
> October 1, 2004
> Contact: Greg Martin or Tony Molinaro
> Phone: 202-267-3883 or 847-294-7427
>
> FAA Proposes Legal Action Against City of Chicago¹s Meigs Field Closure
>
> WASHINGTON, DC * The Federal Aviation
> Administration (FAA) today announced
> that it is taking legal action over
> the 2003 closure of Meigs Field which
> could result in penalties against the
> city of Chicago. The FAA is citing the
> agency¹s regulatory responsibility to
> preserve the national airspace system
> and ensure the traveling public with
> reasonable access to airports as the
> basis for its action today.
>
> The FAA is proposing a civil penalty
> of $33,000, the legal maximum, against
> the city and, separately, is
> initiating an investigation into
> possible violations by the city of its
> federal grant assurances and its
> airport sponsor obligations.
>
> The $33,000 proposed civil penalty
> stems from the city¹s failure to
> provide the required 30-day notice to
> the FAA of the deactivation of Meigs
> Field. The notice requirement is
> intended to allow the FAA to study
> proposed actions that may affect the
> national airspace system prior to the
> actions being taken. According to FAA
> regulations, a maximum penalty of
> $1,100 per day can be assessed for a
> violation of this type.
>
> Additionally, the FAA has initiated an
> investigation to determine whether the
> city improperly diverted $1.5 million
> in restricted airport revenues to pay
> for demolishing the runway at Meigs
> and for its conversion from an airport
> into a city park. The city has 30
> days to reply to the FAA on these
> issues.
>
> The FAA has held several discussions
> with representatives of the city to
> reach an informal resolution of the
> issues, but it will now move forward
> with these formal actions to obtain
> additional facts. In addition to the
> possibility of a civil penalty of
> $33,000, the city of Chicago could be
> required to return monies to the
> O¹Hare Airport Development Fund.
> Should the city refuse to return any
> improperly diverted revenue to the
> Fund, further sanctions are possible,
> including a civil penalty of up to
> three times the amount of the diverted
> funds.
>
> Gary Orpe
> A79228
> E690190
> Certified Virus free by Ed Norton.
> All are absolutely free.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>


How much will the FAA's legal team charge for pressing this suit?

[Bob Noel]

In article <Yds7d.55101$He1.15875@attbi_s01>, "William W. Plummer"
> wrote:

> How much will the FAA's legal team charge for pressing this suit?

better that than going after some poor sod sharing expenses
on a flight. :-/

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[Thomas Borchert]

Orval,

if anything, that fine is an encouragement to other cities wanting to
close their airports. Bad move, IMHO.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Roy Smith]

>> The FAA is proposing a civil penalty
>> of $33,000, the legal maximum, against
>> the city

What a joke. $33,000 may be a big fine to you or me, but to the City of
Chicago, it's chump change.

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Gee, $33K? About the price of a used Cherokee 140?
>
> Big whoop. Ten parking meters on Wacker Drive make that in six months...
>
> I'm heartened that the FAA is closing the door after the cows have escaped,
> and sincerely hope that King Daley is quaking in his boots.

Yes, my thoughts exactly. And why wait so long to act?


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

C J Campbell wrote:

> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The FAA has held several discussions
>>with representatives of the city to
>>reach an informal resolution of the
>>issues, but it will now move forward
>>with these formal actions to obtain
>>additional facts. In addition to the
>>possibility of a civil penalty of
>>$33,000, the city of Chicago could be
>>required to return monies to the
>>O¹Hare Airport Development Fund.
>>Should the city refuse to return any
>>improperly diverted revenue to the
>>Fund, further sanctions are possible,
>>including a civil penalty of up to
>>three times the amount of the diverted
>>funds.
>
>
> The city should require Daley to pay these fines personally.
>
>

No, they should put him in jail for a few years. I'm sure that $33K
isn't all that significant to even him personally. He probably gets
that much in union kickbacks every month.


Matt

[ISLIP]

Daley wants to expand O'hare using Federal tax dollars. I think we all should
pressure our legislators to make sure that no monies will be expended on the
planning or expansion of O'Hare until the city of Chicago restores Meigs and
sells it - with no restrictions - to an outside agency

John

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ISLIP" > wrote in message
...
>
> Daley wants to expand O'hare using Federal tax dollars.
>

That should not happen. The City of Chicago cannot close one perfectly good
public airport and expect federal funds to expand another one.

[Al Marzo]

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 08:54:50 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:

>>> The FAA is proposing a civil penalty
>>> of $33,000, the legal maximum, against
>>> the city
>
>What a joke. $33,000 may be a big fine to you or me, but to the City of
>Chicago, it's chump change.

I've got to agree. Little Daley can punk this much out of the petty
cash without anyone asking questions. This reaction, although it
appears commendable, was long thought out by the Daley team prior to
their escapades. The only way to get this ******* back is to find
something else he's done that will put him in jail. Unfortunately
most people know little to nothing about the real workings of filthy
politics.

[bryan chaisone]

Better late than never. A little is better than nothing.

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in message >...
> For what it is worth, I just received the following notice:
>
>
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
>
> APA 35
> October 1, 2004
> Contact: Greg Martin or Tony Molinaro
> Phone: 202-267-3883 or 847-294-7427
>
> FAA Proposes Legal Action Against City of Chicago¹s Meigs Field Closure
>
> WASHINGTON, DC * The Federal Aviation
> Administration (FAA) today announced
> that it is taking legal action over
> the 2003 closure of Meigs Field which
> could result in penalties against the
> city of Chicago. The FAA is citing the
> agency¹s regulatory responsibility to
> preserve the national airspace system
> and ensure the traveling public with
> reasonable access to airports as the
> basis for its action today.
>
> The FAA is proposing a civil penalty
> of $33,000, the legal maximum, against
> the city and, separately, is
> initiating an investigation into
> possible violations by the city of its
> federal grant assurances and its
> airport sponsor obligations.
>
> The $33,000 proposed civil penalty
> stems from the city¹s failure to
> provide the required 30-day notice to
> the FAA of the deactivation of Meigs
> Field. The notice requirement is
> intended to allow the FAA to study
> proposed actions that may affect the
> national airspace system prior to the
> actions being taken. According to FAA
> regulations, a maximum penalty of
> $1,100 per day can be assessed for a
> violation of this type.
>
> Additionally, the FAA has initiated an
> investigation to determine whether the
> city improperly diverted $1.5 million
> in restricted airport revenues to pay
> for demolishing the runway at Meigs
> and for its conversion from an airport
> into a city park. The city has 30
> days to reply to the FAA on these
> issues.
>
> The FAA has held several discussions
> with representatives of the city to
> reach an informal resolution of the
> issues, but it will now move forward
> with these formal actions to obtain
> additional facts. In addition to the
> possibility of a civil penalty of
> $33,000, the city of Chicago could be
> required to return monies to the
> O¹Hare Airport Development Fund.
> Should the city refuse to return any
> improperly diverted revenue to the
> Fund, further sanctions are possible,
> including a civil penalty of up to
> three times the amount of the diverted
> funds.
>
> Gary Orpe
> A79228
> E690190
> Certified Virus free by Ed Norton.
> All are absolutely free.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/jrDrlB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:13:45 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote in
>::

>Additionally, the FAA has initiated an
>investigation to determine whether the
>city improperly diverted $1.5 million
>in restricted airport revenues to pay
>for demolishing the runway at Meigs
>and for its conversion from an airport
>into a city park.


If true, Daley's diversion of FAA Airport Improvement funds to
demolish Meigs Airport is such an arrogant misuse of federal grant
money for the exact opposite of the use it is intended, that it again
publicly confirms the Chicago mayor's blatant disregard for legal
justice. Wouldn't it be nice if that were an impeachable offence?
Perhaps the folks that got 'Aaahnod' elected in California could be
persuaded to mount a similar campaign to RECALL DALEY.

[David Reinhart]

Not so. The fine is the maximum allowed at the time. Since then the
Meigs Legacy provision has become law, and the maximum fine goes up to
$10,000/per day and the required notice goes up to 90 days. Nine million
may not have kept Chicago from ripping up Meigs, but there aren't many
cities that can afford that.

On top of that, Meigs is the only airport that had special provisions in
its grant assurances that let them off the hook. Not only would another
airport sponsor risk the larger fines, they'd also be responsible for
paying back AIP grant money, which could me tens of millions of dollars,
or more.

Dave Reinhart


Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Orval,
>
> if anything, that fine is an encouragement to other cities wanting to
> close their airports. Bad move, IMHO.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[C J Campbell]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in
message
> >
...
> >
> >>The FAA has held several discussions
> >>with representatives of the city to
> >>reach an informal resolution of the
> >>issues, but it will now move forward
> >>with these formal actions to obtain
> >>additional facts. In addition to the
> >>possibility of a civil penalty of
> >>$33,000, the city of Chicago could be
> >>required to return monies to the
> >>O¹Hare Airport Development Fund.
> >>Should the city refuse to return any
> >>improperly diverted revenue to the
> >>Fund, further sanctions are possible,
> >>including a civil penalty of up to
> >>three times the amount of the diverted
> >>funds.
> >
> >
> > The city should require Daley to pay these fines personally.
> >
> >
>
> No, they should put him in jail for a few years. I'm sure that $33K
> isn't all that significant to even him personally. He probably gets
> that much in union kickbacks every month.

It is not just $33,000. He stole $1.5 million and the city is on the hook
for that and possible treble damages. Daley should personally reimburse the
city for that as well.

[S Narayan]

Also on Avweb
http://www.avweb.com/newswire/10_40b/briefs/188257-1.html


"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> For what it is worth, I just received the following notice:
>
>
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
>
> APA 35
> October 1, 2004
> Contact: Greg Martin or Tony Molinaro
> Phone: 202-267-3883 or 847-294-7427
>
> FAA Proposes Legal Action Against City of Chicago¹s Meigs Field Closure

[Matt Whiting]

bryan chaisone wrote:

> Better late than never. A little is better than nothing.

I have to disagree and agree with the other poster who said this will
only encourage others. If they can get out of having to return all of
the federal airport funds and close and unwanted airport for a mere $30K
fine, then this is a great deal for them.

The Feds should have either went after Daley in a big way or not at all.


Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> bryan chaisone wrote:
>
>> Better late than never. A little is better than nothing.
>
> I have to disagree and agree with the other poster who said this will only
> encourage others. If they can get out of having to return all of the
> federal airport funds and close and unwanted airport for a mere $30K fine,
> then this is a great deal for them.
>

Do you think this encourages others more than doing nothing does?


>
> The Feds should have either went after Daley in a big way or not at all.
>

The Feds should follow the law. If the law allows only a fine of $33,000.00
then that is what they should pursue.

[Ted Azito]

Personally, I hope Daley gets thrown off the platform on the El tracks
and hits the third rail.

[Mike O'Malley]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > news:FSm7d.303820$Fg5.269114@attbi_s53...
> > > Gee, $33K? About the price of a used Cherokee 140?
> > >
> > > Big whoop. Ten parking meters on Wacker Drive make that in six
> months...
> > >
> > > I'm heartened that the FAA is closing the door after the cows have
> > > escaped,
> > > and sincerely hope that King Daley is quaking in his boots.
> >
> > You must have missed the part where Chicago could be on the hook for as
> much
> > as $6 million total (not counting the $33K penalty for violating the
> 30-day
> > notice requirement).
> >
> > The 30-day notice requirement violation is a relatively minor
infraction,
> > and as such wouldn't justify a very large penalty. Diverting funds
> > illegally is a much more egregious violation, and carries with it a much
> > greater penalty.
> >
> > I think it's great news that the FAA is taking action against Chicago,
and
> I
> > found nothing negative in the posted press release at all.
> >
> > Pete
>
>
> Like any of it is going to stick. $33K, $1.5 Million or $6 million its all
> peanuts to the city of chicago. Where else can a mayor buy his wife a
> lakefront park for that kind of money?

Really. As I recall the recently finished Millennium Park was around $375
million OVER budget and 4 years late. I can only guess what this new park
will cost, and anything the FAA fines them will be a drop in the bucket.

[David Lesher]

David Reinhart > writes:


>On top of that, Meigs is the only airport that had special provisions in
>its grant assurances that let them off the hook. Not only would another
>airport sponsor risk the larger fines, they'd also be responsible for
>paying back AIP grant money, which could me tens of millions of dollars,
>or more.

And why did Meigs *not* have this constraint?

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Dave Stadt]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:13:45 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >Additionally, the FAA has initiated an
> >investigation to determine whether the
> >city improperly diverted $1.5 million
> >in restricted airport revenues to pay
> >for demolishing the runway at Meigs
> >and for its conversion from an airport
> >into a city park.
>
>
> If true, Daley's diversion of FAA Airport Improvement funds to
> demolish Meigs Airport is such an arrogant misuse of federal grant
> money for the exact opposite of the use it is intended, that it again
> publicly confirms the Chicago mayor's blatant disregard for legal
> justice. Wouldn't it be nice if that were an impeachable offence?
> Perhaps the folks that got 'Aaahnod' elected in California could be
> persuaded to mount a similar campaign to RECALL DALEY.

[Dave Stadt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "ISLIP" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Daley wants to expand O'hare using Federal tax dollars.
> >
>
> That should not happen. The City of Chicago cannot close one perfectly
good
> public airport and expect federal funds to expand another one.

Wanna bet.

[Jay Honeck]

> > For what it is worth, I just received the following notice:
>
> YEEEEEEEEEEHHHAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Howard? Howard Dean? Is that you?

We've been WONDERING what you've been up to lately!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>>
>> That should not happen. The City of Chicago cannot close one
>> perfectly good public airport and expect federal funds to expand
>> another one.
>>
>
> Wanna bet.
>

Okay. The City of Chicago cannot close one perfectly good public airport
and reasonably expect federal funds to expand another one. Better?

[G.R. Patterson III]

David Lesher wrote:
>
> And why did Meigs *not* have this constraint?

According to AOPA articles, "In 1994, Daley announced plans to close the airport and
build a park in its place on Northerly Island. He could do that because of a unique
FAA grant agreement that gave him an "escape clause." While most federal grants to
airports specify that the airport must remain open 20 years, the Meigs grant
obligated the city to maintain the airport only for the length of its lease for the
land. Northerly Island was owned by the Chicago Park District, which refused to renew
the airport lease in 1996. Without the federal obligation in place, the airport
became private property."

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> bryan chaisone wrote:
>
> > Better late than never. A little is better than nothing.
>
> I have to disagree and agree with the other poster who said this will
> only encourage others. If they can get out of having to return all of
> the federal airport funds and close and unwanted airport for a mere $30K
> fine, then this is a great deal for them.

If a city tries it today, the fine is $900,000.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Javier Henderson]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> m...
> >>
> >> That should not happen. The City of Chicago cannot close one
> >> perfectly good public airport and expect federal funds to expand
> >> another one.
> >>
> >
> > Wanna bet.
> >
>
> Okay. The City of Chicago cannot close one perfectly good public airport
> and reasonably expect federal funds to expand another one. Better?

Excellent grammar, spelling, syntax, semantics, show a good grasp
of the English language.

But, the question still applies. "Wanna bet?"

-jav

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Okay. The City of Chicago cannot close one perfectly good public airport
>> and reasonably expect federal funds to expand another one. Better?
>>
>
> Excellent grammar, spelling, syntax, semantics, show a good grasp
> of the English language.
>
> But, the question still applies. "Wanna bet?"
>

Your question indicates you do not know the meaning of "reasonably".

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Orval,
>
> if anything, that fine is an encouragement to other cities wanting to
> close their airports. Bad move, IMHO.


But other cities have not had their obligations lifted, the way Chicago
did.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:FSm7d.303820$Fg5.269114@attbi_s53...
> > Gee, $33K? About the price of a used Cherokee 140?
> >
> > Big whoop. Ten parking meters on Wacker Drive make that in six months...
> >
> > I'm heartened that the FAA is closing the door after the cows have
> > escaped,
> > and sincerely hope that King Daley is quaking in his boots.
>
> You must have missed the part where Chicago could be on the hook for as much
> as $6 million total (not counting the $33K penalty for violating the 30-day
> notice requirement).
>
> The 30-day notice requirement violation is a relatively minor infraction,
> and as such wouldn't justify a very large penalty. Diverting funds
> illegally is a much more egregious violation, and carries with it a much
> greater penalty.
>
> I think it's great news that the FAA is taking action against Chicago, and I
> found nothing negative in the posted press release at all.
>
> Pete
>
>

Perhaps diverting funds qualifies Daley for RICO (racketeering) charges.
I would LOVE to see him go to Leavenworth!

[David Reinhart]

That's certaily the "how". The "why" is political pressure from the biggest political
machine left in the country.

Dave Reinhart


"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

> David Lesher wrote:
> >
> > And why did Meigs *not* have this constraint?
>
> According to AOPA articles, "In 1994, Daley announced plans to close the airport and
> build a park in its place on Northerly Island. He could do that because of a unique
> FAA grant agreement that gave him an "escape clause." While most federal grants to
> airports specify that the airport must remain open 20 years, the Meigs grant
> obligated the city to maintain the airport only for the length of its lease for the
> land. Northerly Island was owned by the Chicago Park District, which refused to renew
> the airport lease in 1996. Without the federal obligation in place, the airport
> became private property."
>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
> been looking for it.

[Blueskies]

"David Reinhart" > wrote in message ...
> That's certaily the "how". The "why" is political pressure from the biggest political
> machine left in the country.
>
> Dave Reinhart
>
>


Which do you mean, the DNC or the RNC?

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>bryan chaisone wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Better late than never. A little is better than nothing.
>>
>>I have to disagree and agree with the other poster who said this will only
>>encourage others. If they can get out of having to return all of the
>>federal airport funds and close and unwanted airport for a mere $30K fine,
>>then this is a great deal for them.
>>
>
>
> Do you think this encourages others more than doing nothing does?

Yes, I do. Prior to this they had an unknown liability if they did what
Daley did. Now they have a known, and very small, liability. Most
people will take a known vs. an unknown any day. Before they were still
wondering what might happen. Now they know, and they know it is a
trivial fine.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

David Lesher wrote:

> David Reinhart > writes:
>
>
>
>>On top of that, Meigs is the only airport that had special provisions in
>>its grant assurances that let them off the hook. Not only would another
>>airport sponsor risk the larger fines, they'd also be responsible for
>>paying back AIP grant money, which could me tens of millions of dollars,
>>or more.
>
>
> And why did Meigs *not* have this constraint?
>

You really don't know much about Chicago do you? :-)

This is the corruption capital of the US. I'm sure some money greased
the right palms...


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>bryan chaisone wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Better late than never. A little is better than nothing.
>>
>>I have to disagree and agree with the other poster who said this will
>>only encourage others. If they can get out of having to return all of
>>the federal airport funds and close and unwanted airport for a mere $30K
>>fine, then this is a great deal for them.
>
>
> If a city tries it today, the fine is $900,000.

Still chump change for a city the size of Chicago. The fine should be a
percentage of the cities annual budget, something like 50% of its budget
would work for me. A fixed rate fine only deters the small towns and
cities.


Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, I do. Prior to this they had an unknown liability if they did what
> Daley did. Now they have a known, and very small, liability. Most people
> will take a known vs. an unknown any day. Before they were still
> wondering what might happen. Now they know, and they know it is a trivial
> fine.
>

Chicago was hit with the maximum fine. Because of Meigs the fine has been
increased.

[Dan Luke]

"Dave Stadt" wrote:
>> I think it's great news that the FAA is taking action against
>> Chicago, and
> I
>> found nothing negative in the posted press release at all.
>>
>> Pete
>
>
> Like any of it is going to stick. $33K, $1.5 Million or $6 million its
> all
> peanuts to the city of chicago. Where else can a mayor buy his wife a
> lakefront park for that kind of money?

And Daley will no doubt spin himself a role as the heroic defender of
the city persecuted by the big, bad feds.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Yes, I do. Prior to this they had an unknown liability if they did what
>>Daley did. Now they have a known, and very small, liability. Most people
>>will take a known vs. an unknown any day. Before they were still
>>wondering what might happen. Now they know, and they know it is a trivial
>>fine.
>>
>
>
> Chicago was hit with the maximum fine. Because of Meigs the fine has been
> increased.
>
>

The change in fines for future violations is the only consolation from
this fiasco. Putting Daley in jail would be an excellent outcome though.


Matt

[G.R. Patterson III]

Blueskies wrote:
>
> Which do you mean, the DNC or the RNC?

If you seriously think that the Republican party would give Daley the time of day,
you have another think coming.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> A fixed rate fine only deters the small towns and cities.

And how many cities the size of Chicago have an airport that they might reasonably
want to tear up without warning?

Although I don't agree with you on that side of it, I *do* agree that the fine should
be set up in a different fashion. Like any fixed price, inflation will eventually
render it trivial for some people, and requiring an act of Congress to increase it is
not a good idea.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[David Lesher]

Matt Whiting > writes:

>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


>The change in fines for future violations is the only consolation from
>this fiasco. Putting Daley in jail would be an excellent outcome though.



Doesn't Baghdad need a mayor?

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Al Marzo]

Oh well, another American that doesn't know how the game is played!



On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 18:59:22 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>Blueskies wrote:
>>
>> Which do you mean, the DNC or the RNC?
>
>If you seriously think that the Republican party would give Daley the time of day,
>you have another think coming.
>
>George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
> been looking for it.

[PaulH]

1.5 million is, in Chicago, peanuts compared with the amount of
continual graft and corruption that goes on (entire state, not just
the city). The biggest potential cost is that increasing congestion
at OHare since the Meigs closure is going to give better ammunition to
the people that want to build the new airport at Peotone, outside the
city. There's a lot of maneuvering to get this done, since it opens
up an entirely new venue for corruption independent of the city. The
OHare expansion project may never get done, and Daley may have cost
the city a big airport, not a small one, in the long run.

[UltraJohn]

Roy Smith wrote:

>>> The FAA is proposing a civil penalty
>>> of $33,000, the legal maximum, against
>>> the city
>
> What a joke. $33,000 may be a big fine to you or me, but to the City of
> Chicago, it's chump change.


They lose more in the couch!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 13:27:25 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
> :
> :"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> :>
> :> Yes, I do. Prior to this they had an unknown liability if they did
> what
> :> Daley did. Now they have a known, and very small, liability. Most
> people
> :> will take a known vs. an unknown any day. Before they were still
> :> wondering what might happen. Now they know, and they know it is a
> trivial
> :> fine.
> :>
> :
> :Chicago was hit with the maximum fine. Because of Meigs the fine has
> been
> :increased.
>
> If they're serious about dealing with Chicago, they need to prevent
> any expansion at O'Hare and stop construction of a third airport.
>

No, they don't need to prevent it, they just should not fund it.


>
> After all, Chicago has clearly demonstrated that they don't think they
> need more airport capacity.
>

Zackly.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> The change in fines for future violations is the only consolation from
> this fiasco. Putting Daley in jail would be an excellent outcome though.
>

On what charge?

[bryan chaisone]

That's good to hear George. Where did you hear/read that from? I
hope this will help dicourage any future incidents. There are less
and less places to land anymore. I'm glad I fly helos too! I better
declare/register a heliport on my property soon, before it gets hard
to do.

Bryan "Formerly known as 'The Monk'" Chaisone

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
> > bryan chaisone wrote:
> >
> > > Better late than never. A little is better than nothing.
> >
> > I have to disagree and agree with the other poster who said this will
> > only encourage others. If they can get out of having to return all of
> > the federal airport funds and close and unwanted airport for a mere $30K
> > fine, then this is a great deal for them.
>
> If a city tries it today, the fine is $900,000.
>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
> been looking for it.

[G.R. Patterson III]

bryan chaisone wrote:
>
> That's good to hear George. Where did you hear/read that from?

AOPA mainly. The "Meigs Legacy" ammendment was attached to the last FAA
Reauthorization bill. It increased the notice from 30 days to 90 and increased the
fine from $1,100 a day to $10,000 a day.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[David Reinhart]

If he used the grant money to tear up the runway, maybe they can get him on a
federal fraud charge.

Dave Reinhart


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The change in fines for future violations is the only consolation from
> > this fiasco. Putting Daley in jail would be an excellent outcome though.
> >
>
> On what charge?

[David Reinhart]

No, I mean the Democratic Party in Chicago & Cook county, which is run by Daley. It's one of, if not the,
last true, ward-heeling, buy anything, vote early vote often, who cares if they're dead-register them,
don't screw with the Boss political machine in the U.S. The national committees are tea and crumpets
compared to Chicago.

Dave Reinhart


Blueskies wrote:

> "David Reinhart" > wrote in message ...
> > That's certaily the "how". The "why" is political pressure from the biggest political
> > machine left in the country.
> >
> > Dave Reinhart
> >
> >
>
> Which do you mean, the DNC or the RNC?

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The change in fines for future violations is the only consolation from
>>this fiasco. Putting Daley in jail would be an excellent outcome though.
>>
>
>
> On what charge?
>
>

I'm sure they could find something if they look closely.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

David Reinhart wrote:

> If he used the grant money to tear up the runway, maybe they can get him on a
> federal fraud charge.
>
> Dave Reinhart
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
>
>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>The change in fines for future violations is the only consolation from
>>>this fiasco. Putting Daley in jail would be an excellent outcome though.
>>>
>>
>>On what charge?
>
>

Didn't he violate the law that required 30 days notice?


Matt

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> David Reinhart wrote:
>
> > If he used the grant money to tear up the runway, maybe they can get him
on a
> > federal fraud charge.
> >
> > Dave Reinhart
> >
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>The change in fines for future violations is the only consolation from
> >>>this fiasco. Putting Daley in jail would be an excellent outcome
though.
> >>>
> >>
> >>On what charge?
> >
> >
>
> Didn't he violate the law that required 30 days notice?
>
>
> Matt


The punishment for which is a meager fine not jail time.

[bryan chaisone]

Good deal. Thanks George.

Bryan

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...
> bryan chaisone wrote:
> >
> > That's good to hear George. Where did you hear/read that from?
>
> AOPA mainly. The "Meigs Legacy" ammendment was attached to the last FAA
> Reauthorization bill. It increased the notice from 30 days to 90 and increased the
> fine from $1,100 a day to $10,000 a day.
>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
> been looking for it.

[Larry Dighera]

The latest information on this despicable saga is on AOPA's web site:



http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2004/041006meigs.html

[...]

Daley said he closed Meigs because of security concerns following the
September 11, 2001, terror attacks, adding, "I don't think small
planes should be flying whatsoever in the metropolitan area,
especially in the city of Chicago."

[...]

Daley is also attempting to justify the city's possible misuse of
$1.49 million in federal grants and passenger facility charges to tear
up Meigs. The mayor claimed that the city, which leased the land for
Meigs Field from the Chicago Park District, "lost its lease" and had
no choice but to close the airport. And because the city could no
longer use the land as an airport, it was obligated to restore the
property to its original condition.

That's another of the partial truths propagated by city spokespeople.
While the Park District is nominally independent of the City of
Chicago, the mayor appoints the seven-member board of park
commissioners. To think that the Park District doesn't do exactly what
the mayor wants would demonstrate a certain naiveté about Chicago
power politics. And not to put too fine a point on it, but the man who
ramrodded Meigs' destruction from the mayor's office is now the
superintendent of the parks district.

So what about using federal money to "restore" the property? The FAA
says that federal airport monies must be used for improving and
enhancing airports. Period. Daley claims that federal money was used
to dismantle the old Denver Stapleton airport. The mayor again has
made selective use of the facts. Stapleton was replaced by Denver
International Airport. The federal government does sometimes allow the
closure of a grant-obligated airport, if it is being replaced by a
better facility.

But there's another little legal nicety that the City of Chicago may
have forgotten. The expenditure of federal funds has to be approved
before the fact. Federal funds aren't part of one big slush fund for
local politicians to spend anyway they want — not even for the mayor
of Chicago.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Daley is also attempting to justify the city's possible misuse of
> $1.49 million in federal grants and passenger facility charges to tear
> up Meigs. The mayor claimed that the city, which leased the land for
> Meigs Field from the Chicago Park District, "lost its lease" and had
> no choice but to close the airport. And because the city could no
> longer use the land as an airport, it was obligated to restore the
> property to its original condition.
>

Northerly Island is man-made. Restoration to it's original condition would
require it to be removed completely.

[Larry Dighera]

At last, justice is done, and the criminals have been fined. But one
wonders why it took the AOPA to get the FAA to enforce the law:


-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 8, Issue 38 September 22, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------


FAA SLAPS CHICAGO IN FINAL MEIGS DECISION
As a result of AOPA's complaint, Chicago will pay a $33,000 fine
for illegally tearing up Meigs Field without proper notification.
And the city will have to repay $1 million of airport funds that
Mayor Richard M. Daley illegally diverted from O'Hare and Midway
airports to give to the destruction contractors. And with the more
than $550,000 the city has already spent attempting to fight the
fine and repayment, hapless Chicago taxpayers are out close to
$1.6 million, and they've lost a world-class airport that
generated $57 million a year in economic activity for the city.
The FAA announced the final settlement with the city Monday. The
city admitted no wrongdoing. "This sends a clear signal to other
cities that the FAA is serious about upholding its regulations and
that AOPA is serious about holding everyone's feet to the fire
when it comes to protecting airports," said AOPA President Phil
Boyer. AOPA filed the original complaints that resulted in the
fine and fund repayment. "Many of us always thought that the civil
penalty of $1,100 per day was 'chump change' to a city with the
budget of Chicago," said Boyer. "But whether he admits it or not,
it shows that Daley violated FAA regulations and could have put
aircraft at risk." And for the future, it won't be chump change.
That's because after Meigs, AOPA successfully lobbied Congress
to increase the fine to $10,000 per day, to make it much more
painful for another city to attempt a midnight airport raid.
Notice of the proposed closure must also be published in the
"Federal Register." See AOPA Online
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060919meigs.html ).







On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:13:45 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote in
>:

>For what it is worth, I just received the following notice:
>
>
>
>FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
>
>
>APA 35
>October 1, 2004
>Contact: Greg Martin or Tony Molinaro
>Phone: 202-267-3883 or 847-294-7427
>
>FAA Proposes Legal Action Against City of Chicago¹s Meigs Field Closure
>
>WASHINGTON, DC * The Federal Aviation
>Administration (FAA) today announced
>that it is taking legal action over
>the 2003 closure of Meigs Field which
>could result in penalties against the
>city of Chicago. The FAA is citing the
>agency¹s regulatory responsibility to
>preserve the national airspace system
>and ensure the traveling public with
>reasonable access to airports as the
>basis for its action today.
>
>The FAA is proposing a civil penalty
>of $33,000, the legal maximum, against
>the city and, separately, is
>initiating an investigation into
>possible violations by the city of its
>federal grant assurances and its
>airport sponsor obligations.
>
>The $33,000 proposed civil penalty
>stems from the city¹s failure to
>provide the required 30-day notice to
>the FAA of the deactivation of Meigs
>Field. The notice requirement is
>intended to allow the FAA to study
>proposed actions that may affect the
>national airspace system prior to the
>actions being taken. According to FAA
>regulations, a maximum penalty of
>$1,100 per day can be assessed for a
>violation of this type.
>
>Additionally, the FAA has initiated an
>investigation to determine whether the
>city improperly diverted $1.5 million
>in restricted airport revenues to pay
>for demolishing the runway at Meigs
>and for its conversion from an airport
>into a city park. The city has 30
>days to reply to the FAA on these
>issues.
>
>The FAA has held several discussions
>with representatives of the city to
>reach an informal resolution of the
>issues, but it will now move forward
>with these formal actions to obtain
>additional facts. In addition to the
>possibility of a civil penalty of
>$33,000, the city of Chicago could be
>required to return monies to the
>O¹Hare Airport Development Fund.
>Should the city refuse to return any
>improperly diverted revenue to the
>Fund, further sanctions are possible,
>including a civil penalty of up to
>three times the amount of the diverted
>funds.
>
> Gary Orpe
> A79228
> E690190
> Certified Virus free by Ed Norton.
> All are absolutely free.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
>$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
>http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/jrDrlB/TM
>--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
><*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
>
><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>
><*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Emily[_1_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> At last, justice is done, and the criminals have been fined. But one
> wonders why it took the AOPA to get the FAA to enforce the law:

I don't know....$1.6 million isn't anything to the city, and Daley would
do it again in a heartbeat, even knowing he'd be fined.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 10:08:33 -0500, Emily >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> At last, justice is done, and the criminals have been fined. But one
>> wonders why it took the AOPA to get the FAA to enforce the law:
>
>I don't know....$1.6 million isn't anything to the city, and Daley would
>do it again in a heartbeat, even knowing he'd be fined.

Right. This fine addresses the civil aspect of the issue, but what of
the criminal acts?

Perhaps the federal fine paves the way for those pilots who were
endangered by Daley's midnight raid to file suits, with a greater
likelihood of winning their cases.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> At last, justice is done, and the criminals have been fined. But one
>> wonders why it took the AOPA to get the FAA to enforce the law:
>
> I don't know....$1.6 million isn't anything to the city, and Daley would do it
> again in a heartbeat, even knowing he'd be fined.

Unfortunately, I agree. Unless Chicago were forced to restore the airport
(never a serious possibility), we lose.

That land (which Chicago effectively stole) is worth far more than the $1.6
million. I see a solid win for Chicago. And the "criminals" themselves get off
scott free, it was the taxpayers who foot the bill for the tiny fine, not the
actual criminals.

Vaughn

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> Unfortunately, I agree. Unless Chicago were forced to restore the
> airport (never a serious possibility), we lose.
>
> That land (which Chicago effectively stole) is worth far more than the
> $1.6 million. I see a solid win for Chicago. And the "criminals"
> themselves get off scott free, it was the taxpayers who foot the bill for
> the tiny fine, not the actual criminals.
>

I see it as a solid loss for everyone. Aviators lose a fine airport,
Chicago loses an asset which generated far more annual revenue for the city
than $1.6 million, and Daley loses his casino.

[Stefan]

Vaughn Simon wrote:

> That land (which Chicago effectively stole)

It's always somewhat strange when a white American complains about land
being stolen...

Stefan

[[email protected]]

Stefan wrote:
> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>
> > That land (which Chicago effectively stole)
>
> It's always somewhat strange when a white American complains about land
> being stolen...
>
> Stefan

Oh yeah, that's right, white Americans are EVIL!!!! We stole
everything and are the cause of all the worlds problems!

You remind me of a cousin of mine. We were walking down the stairwell
of a parking garage near the San Francisco wharf and I complained about
the grafitti on the walls. His response was "when the Indians were
here, they could write on anything they wanted".

An hour later after seeing the waterfront, we were walking up another
stairwell in the garage and encountered a strong urine odor. My cousin
said "I wish people wouldn't pee in here", so I said "when the Indians
were here, they could pee wherever they wanted".

Get the point? History is history.

[Stefan]

schrieb:

> Get the point? History is history.

Agreed. MEIGS is history. Get over it.

Stefan

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Stefan > wrote:

> > That land (which Chicago effectively stole)
>
> It's always somewhat strange when a white American complains about land
> being stolen...

Ok then, I'll complain that the land was stolen. Do you feel better now?

btw - who did your people steal land from?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Dan Luke]

"Bob Noel" wrote::

>> > That land (which Chicago effectively stole)
>>
>> It's always somewhat strange when a white American complains about land
>> being stolen...
>
> Ok then, I'll complain that the land was stolen. Do you feel better now?
>
> btw - who did your people steal land from?

Each other; repeatedly, over thousands of years. Stealing land--by
genocide, usually--is the engine of human history.

--
Dan

"Almost all the matter that came out of the Big Bang was two specific sorts;
hydrogen, and stupidity."

-Robert Carnegie in talk.origins

[Vaughn Simon]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>
>> That land (which Chicago effectively stole)
>
> It's always somewhat strange when a white American complains about land being
> stolen...

What makes you believe that I am either? ...and what does that have to do
with the subject of the thread?

Vaughn

[Mxsmanic]

Emily writes:

> I don't know....$1.6 million isn't anything to the city, and Daley would
> do it again in a heartbeat, even knowing he'd be fined.

He knows he has popular support. Most people would be more interested
in a park than in an airport.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Stefan]

Vaughn Simon schrieb:

>>> That land (which Chicago effectively stole)

>> It's always somewhat strange when a white American complains about land being
>> stolen...

> What makes you believe that I am either?

Your interest in Meigs and statistics. I might be wrong.

> ...and what does that have to do
> with the subject of the thread?

Nothing. So why did you make the comment then?

Stefan

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 10:08:33 -0500, Emily >
> wrote in >:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> At last, justice is done, and the criminals have been fined. But
>>> one wonders why it took the AOPA to get the FAA to enforce the law:
>>
>> I don't know....$1.6 million isn't anything to the city, and Daley
>> would do it again in a heartbeat, even knowing he'd be fined.
>
> Right. This fine addresses the civil aspect of the issue, but what of
> the criminal acts?
>
> Perhaps the federal fine paves the way for those pilots who were
> endangered by Daley's midnight raid to file suits, with a greater
> likelihood of winning their cases.
>
Saaaayyyy... weren't all of us en route to Meigs that Sunday night???
;-)

Neil

[Emily[_1_]]

Stefan wrote:
> schrieb:
>
>> Get the point? History is history.
>
> Agreed. MEIGS is history. Get over it.
>
> Stefan

Not ancient history.

If you're used to living in a highly regulated country, fine. Some of
us aren't.

I'm guessing you never flew into CGX.

[RomeoMike]

Stefan wrote:

> It's always somewhat strange when a white American complains about land
> being stolen...
>
> Stefan

Before "white Americans" arrived and "stole" the land from native
Americans, the latter were often stealing it from each other. If you
live in a country that doesn't have a period in history when it stole
the land of someone else, I'd surely like to know what country that is.
Conquest and sometimes reconquest is part of every civilization's
history. But with regard to Meigs, most Americans don't like dictatorial
decision making, particularly when done in the secretive, sneaky way
that Meigs was closed. Those of us who had the opportunity of using
Meigs miss it, and we don't forget because we don't want more GA
friendly airports suffering the same end.

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Stefan > wrote:
>
>> > That land (which Chicago effectively stole)
>>
>> It's always somewhat strange when a white American complains about land
>> being stolen...
>
> Ok then, I'll complain that the land was stolen. Do you feel better now?
>
> btw - who did your people steal land from?

How do you steal something that is not owned?

[Matt Barrow]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stefan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>>
>>> That land (which Chicago effectively stole)
>>
>> It's always somewhat strange when a white American complains about land
>> being stolen...
>
> What makes you believe that I am either? ...and what does that have
> to do with the subject of the thread?

"Stefan" is a long-time internet troll/escapee from the funny farm.

[BTIZ]

>
>> That land (which Chicago effectively stole)
>
> It's always somewhat strange when a white American complains about land
> being stolen...
>
> Stefan

Funny.. I remember my history books telling me they traded away a whole
island for some beads and blankets... Manhattan ... that does not sound like
stealing to me

BT

[John Gaquin]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
> At last, justice is done, and the criminals have been fined.

Are you kidding? Justice? Chicago gets 50 acres, m/l, of prime waterfront
land for 1.6 million. I'd take that deal any day of the week, and twice on
Sundays. Just wait a few years, til they figure a way to do away with the
park and auction off development rights. You'll see big, big smiles in the
Mayor's office, and a mile of 40 story condos.

[Mxsmanic]

John Gaquin writes:

> Are you kidding? Justice? Chicago gets 50 acres, m/l, of prime waterfront
> land for 1.6 million. I'd take that deal any day of the week, and twice on
> Sundays. Just wait a few years, til they figure a way to do away with the
> park and auction off development rights. You'll see big, big smiles in the
> Mayor's office, and a mile of 40 story condos.

Maybe. Is that land on bedrock, or is it reclaimed from the water? A
40-story building requires very solid foundations, much more so than a
runway.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> Maybe. Is that land on bedrock, or is it reclaimed from the water? A
> 40-story building requires very solid foundations, much more so than a
> runway.
>

Northerly Island was made from dredging spoils. Most of the present
lakeshore area rests on rubble from the 1871 fire. The lakeshore at that
time was just east of the parallel rail line.

[Mxsmanic]

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

> Northerly Island was made from dredging spoils. Most of the present
> lakeshore area rests on rubble from the 1871 fire.

Sounds fine for a runway, but I wouldn't want to build skyscrapers on
it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sounds fine for a runway, but I wouldn't want to build skyscrapers on it.
>

No, but it would have supported a casino, which is what Daley wanted.

[Fred]

Stefan wrote:

> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>
> > That land (which Chicago effectively stole)
>
> It's always somewhat strange when a white American complains about land
> being stolen...

How can you determine one's race based on a Usenet post? You must have
pretty good surveillance.

[Fred]

RomeoMike wrote:

> Stefan wrote:
>
> > It's always somewhat strange when a white American complains about land
> > being stolen...
> >
> > Stefan
>
> Before "white Americans" arrived and "stole" the land from native

I thought it was white *Europeans* who arrived and stole the land. Blame
them.

[Fred]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Emily writes:
>
> > I don't know....$1.6 million isn't anything to the city, and Daley would
> > do it again in a heartbeat, even knowing he'd be fined.
>
> He knows he has popular support. Most people would be more interested
> in a park than in an airport.

Wasn't Meigs prominently featured in that Microsoft flight game?

[Fred]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> John Gaquin writes:
>
> > Are you kidding? Justice? Chicago gets 50 acres, m/l, of prime waterfront
> > land for 1.6 million. I'd take that deal any day of the week, and twice on
> > Sundays. Just wait a few years, til they figure a way to do away with the
> > park and auction off development rights. You'll see big, big smiles in the
> > Mayor's office, and a mile of 40 story condos.
>
> Maybe. Is that land on bedrock, or is it reclaimed from the water? A
> 40-story building requires very solid foundations, much more so than a
> runway.

Reclaimed from water, just like Boston's back bay section. Certainly hasn't been
an obstacle to building skyscrapers *there*!

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Fred > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Emily writes:
>>
>> > I don't know....$1.6 million isn't anything to the city, and Daley would
>> > do it again in a heartbeat, even knowing he'd be fined.
>>
>> He knows he has popular support. Most people would be more interested
>> in a park than in an airport.
>
> Wasn't Meigs prominently featured in that Microsoft flight game?

Up to and including MS Flight Simulator 2002, yes. It was the
default starting location for all flights. It was changed to KSEA in
FS2004.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFF2gByBkZmuMZ8L8RAuo9AKDYLIek9aVumg2iIyEqQp vAknunqwCfcSfY
VoOpB0P0+SVZMJuXHUIoZQU=
=o1lh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Vaughn Simon]

"Fred" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Reclaimed from water, just like Boston's back bay section. Certainly hasn't
> been
> an obstacle to building skyscrapers *there*!

Same for a significant portion of downtown San Francisco.

Vaughn
>

[Mxsmanic]

Fred writes:

> Wasn't Meigs prominently featured in that Microsoft flight game?

Yes, but only a tiny minority of the population uses that flight game.
Even so, they probably outnumber pilots by ten or a hundred to one.
And overall, both groups together don't even make a dent in the
demographics of the overall population.

In other words, most people would say yes to a park, and no to an
airport.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:20:11 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>In other words, most people would say yes to a park, and no to an
>airport.

Unfortunately, it requires statesmanship, insight, and leadership to
encourage the populace to acknowledge the necessity for a vital
component in this nation's transportation infrastructure. The
impossibility of acquiring replacement real estate for a municipal
airport gateway to the aerospace transportation system of the future
is the crucial issue in the airport closure debate. I have yet to see
any arguments opposing that fact.

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 18:21:48 -0700, BTIZ wrote:

> Funny.. I remember my history books telling me they traded away a whole
> island for some beads and blankets... Manhattan ... that does not sound
> like stealing to me

Have you ever seen that island? I'd take the beads and blankets.

- Andrew

P.S. Of course, it was probably nicer back then.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Unfortunately, it requires statesmanship, insight, and leadership to
> encourage the populace to acknowledge the necessity for a vital
> component in this nation's transportation infrastructure.

Maybe. But are you sure your interest in aviation hasn't biased your
viewpoint? People who see aircraft as just a means of getting from
place to place, and will never set foot in anything other than a
commercial airliner, are going to have a really hard time seeing the
utility in a little airport like Meigs. The vast majority of the
population never comes anywhere near general aviation; in fact, most
people don't know that it exists.

> The impossibility of acquiring replacement real estate for a municipal
> airport gateway to the aerospace transportation system of the future
> is the crucial issue in the airport closure debate. I have yet to see
> any arguments opposing that fact.

How do you know that general aviation is the wave of the future?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> The impossibility of acquiring replacement real estate for a
>> municipal airport gateway to the aerospace transportation system of
>> the future is the crucial issue in the airport closure debate. I
>> have yet to see any arguments opposing that fact.
>
> How do you know that general aviation is the wave of the future?
>
Have you done any travelling lately? There are a lot of companies, from
Honda to Eclipse to Cessna and others who are betting that, given a
reasonable alternative, people won't put up with the time and hassle of
using hubs that are 180° away from where they ultimately want to go.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> Have you done any travelling lately? There are a lot of companies, from
> Honda to Eclipse to Cessna and others who are betting that, given a
> reasonable alternative, people won't put up with the time and hassle of
> using hubs that are 180° away from where they ultimately want to go.

Which means what? I don't see the connection.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> Have you done any travelling lately? There are a lot of companies,
>> from Honda to Eclipse to Cessna and others who are betting that,
>> given a reasonable alternative, people won't put up with the time
>> and hassle of using hubs that are 180° away from where they
>> ultimately want to go.
>
> Which means what? I don't see the connection.
>
Regional jets and the smaller light jets such as the above companies are
introducing can use the shorter runways of GA airports, and therefore
become more efficient ways to travel. While it's early in that curve, the
idea is based on the already successful corporate jet enterprises (that
also use GA airports). So, it directly answers your original question
about the viability of GA.

Neil

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 23:20:55 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> Unfortunately, it requires statesmanship, insight, and leadership to
>> encourage the populace to acknowledge the necessity for a vital
>> component in this nation's transportation infrastructure.
>
>Maybe. But are you sure your interest in aviation hasn't biased your
>viewpoint?

My viewpoint is based on the future path NASA and the FAA have
outlined here:

http://ncam-sats.org/NCAMNews/SATSFS-2004-07-1.pdf

The SATS concept offers an on-demand, point-to-point,
widely distributed transportation system. It relies on
advanced four to ten passenger aircraft using new
operating capabilities. Such a system promises improved
safety, efficiency, reliability and affordability for small
aircraft operating within the nation's 5,400 public-use landing
facilities. Nearly all of the U.S. population lives
within a 30-minute drive of at least one of these airports.

Unfortunately, if municipal airports are closed (currently occurring
at the rate of two per month), it will doom those municipalities to
exclusion from the future air transportation system unless they are
able to build new airports, but where will the find the necessary
vacant land?


http://sats.nasa.gov/

NASA's SATS Program
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), in
partnership with the Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and state & local aviation and airport
authorities, leads a new research & development program for
developing and demonstrating technologies needed for a Small
Aircraft Transportation System (SATS). The project's initial
mission is to prove that four new operating capabilities will
enable safe and affordable access to virtually any runway in the
nation in most weather conditions. These new operating
capabilities rely on on-board computing, advanced flight controls,
Highway in the Sky displays, and automated air traffic separation
and sequencing technologies.


http://ncam-sats.org/
Resolution of the Aerospace States Association
RESOLUTION REGARDING THE PROPOSED
SAFE SMALL AIRCRAFT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (SATS)
• WHEREAS a variety of forces are converging to reduce the
effectiveness of the nation's existing highway and hub-spoke air
transport system to meet the growing needs of short distance,
inter and intra-state travel; and
• WHEREAS these forces include the maturing of the hub-spoke air
transport system, the increasing gridlock on the nation's
highways, and the increasing value of human time; and
• WHEREAS the nation has an existing infrastructure of 17,000
airports for small, General Aviation Aircraft, of which at least
5,000 could be modified to meet the nation's emerging short
distance transportation needs; and
• WHEREAS the Federal Government, acting through NASA, has
undertaken cooperative technology development efforts with the
nation's General Aviation industry to develop a new era of
aircraft capable of effectively using these 5,000 airports; and
• WHEREAS the investment in, and control of ground infrastructure
associated with such airports is under the jurisdiction of the
nation's State and local authorities; and
• WHEREAS the Federal Government has offered to develop, with
State governments, the means to upgrade those 5,000 airports with
new capabilities, such as Global Positioning Systems (GPS), and
link them together into a system to be known as the Small Aircraft
Transportation System (SATS); and
• WHEREAS the development of a SATS has the potential to generate
transportation-driven economic development benefits; and
• WHEREAS the coordinated development of a SATS would be of
substantial benefit to the State governments in meeting the
transportation needs of their citizens; and
• WHEREAS it is the purpose of the Aerospace States Associations
to identify, support, and assist in the implementation of
aerospace policies which involve coordination between the Federal
and State governments,
• NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aerospace States
Association endorses and supports efforts by the Federal
Government to undertake the planning and implementation associated
with the creation of a Small Aircraft Transportation System
(SATS).
Resolved this 19th day of July, 1999 by a unanimous vote of the
members voting.
The Honorable Joseph E. Kernan (Lt. Governor, Indiana)
Chair


>People who see aircraft as just a means of getting from
>place to place, and will never set foot in anything other than a
>commercial airliner, are going to have a really hard time seeing the
>utility in a little airport like Meigs.

Lack of insight and greed are the cause of the closures of so many
municipal airports.

>The vast majority of the population never comes anywhere near general
>aviation; in fact, most people don't know that it exists.

That is destined to change. Of curse it requires creative insight to
appreciate a new transportation system, but it will happen despite
those with their heads in the sand.

>> The impossibility of acquiring replacement real estate for a municipal
>> airport gateway to the aerospace transportation system of the future
>> is the crucial issue in the airport closure debate. I have yet to see
>> any arguments opposing that fact.
>
>How do you know that general aviation is the wave of the future?

Read the SATS information available at the links above.

Surely you don't believe that the air transportation system is
destined to remain static, do you?

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> Regional jets and the smaller light jets such as the above companies are
> introducing can use the shorter runways of GA airports, and therefore
> become more efficient ways to travel. While it's early in that curve, the
> idea is based on the already successful corporate jet enterprises (that
> also use GA airports). So, it directly answers your original question
> about the viability of GA.

A great deal of additional infrastructure would be required at many GA
airports in order to make them suitable for ordinary commercial
airline services, irrespective of the type of planes used. Just
flying planes that can accept a shorter runway would only cover the
tip of the iceberg.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> My viewpoint is based on the future path NASA and the FAA have
> outlined here:

NASA and the FAA don't make policy, they follow it. Without a public
interest in what they propose, it won't happen.

A policy that enhances GA alone is unlikely to get any public or
political support. A policy that usurps certain aspects of GA for
commercial air transport is likely to crowd GA out of the picture
entirely, in time.

> Lack of insight and greed are the cause of the closures of so many
> municipal airports.

Is there no greed in wanting to dedicate large amounts of land to use
by a very tiny minority of the population?

> That is destined to change. Of curse it requires creative insight to
> appreciate a new transportation system, but it will happen despite
> those with their heads in the sand.

If it changes, the change will eliminate GA and replace it with purely
commercial air transport, essentially another tier of the existing
commercial system.

> Read the SATS information available at the links above.

I don't see how that information indicates that GA is any way of the
future for anyone.

> Surely you don't believe that the air transportation system is
> destined to remain static, do you?

I think general aviation is in serious danger, so no, I don't believe
that it will remain static. Just as there are no significant private
railroads or trains, there may eventually be no private planes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> Regional jets and the smaller light jets such as the above companies
>> are introducing can use the shorter runways of GA airports, and
>> therefore become more efficient ways to travel. While it's early in
>> that curve, the idea is based on the already successful corporate
>> jet enterprises (that also use GA airports). So, it directly answers
>> your original question about the viability of GA.
>
> A great deal of additional infrastructure would be required at many GA
> airports in order to make them suitable for ordinary commercial
> airline services, irrespective of the type of planes used. Just
> flying planes that can accept a shorter runway would only cover the
> tip of the iceberg.
>
How did you arrive at that conclusion? The GA airports that I fly out of
have "commercial airline services" of the type that I've described, above.
They are _charter services_, corporate and coop services, all of which are
flying under Part 135. It is precisely their difference from the
necessities of large carriers that make them viable, and part of that
viability is the far greater number of airports that can accommodate them.

Neil

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:49:49 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera writes:
>
>> My viewpoint is based on the future path NASA and the FAA have
>> outlined here:
>
>NASA and the FAA don't make policy, they follow it. Without a public
>interest in what they propose, it won't happen.

Show me a member of the flying "public" that is not interested in
avoiding the tiring drive on congested highways to the international
airport. What makes you think there is no public support for SATS?

>A policy that enhances GA alone is unlikely to get any public or
>political support.

Fortunately, that is not the case for SATS.

SATS removes the necessity for airline passengers to drive by
automobile to and from a distant airport to engage in airline travel.
It also enables airline hub airports to be relocated in sparsely
populated areas, thus removing airliner noise and surface traffic
congestion from metropolitan areas. Show me a member of the "public"
who relishes noise and traffic congestion. The motivation for public
support of SATS is already latent, and through education it will be
brought to the fore.

It would appear, that you have failed to appreciate (or read and
comprehend in the 21 minutes that transpired between the posting of my
article and your follow up) the information in the links I provided.
All you offer are arguments solely supported by your opinion; you
provide no independent, credible evidence that supports your
subjective opinions. That is disappointing.

>A policy that usurps certain aspects of GA for
>commercial air transport is likely to crowd GA out of the picture
>entirely, in time.

Please provide a citation for credible evidence that supports your
notion that SATS "usurps certain aspects of GA." Which aspects of GA
do you feel would be usurped?

>> Lack of insight and greed are the cause of the closures of so many
>> municipal airports.
>
>Is there no greed in wanting to dedicate large amounts of land to use
>by a very tiny minority of the population?

The real estate upon which rests this nation's airports has become
valuable as burgeoning population growth ever encroaches, and the
nature of the property turns from rural to suburban and urban. The
cities are greedy for a larger tax base, and see selling the, now
valuable, real estate to developers as a double win: revenue from the
sale, and property tax revenue from the new owners, not to mention
sales taxes that may be collected on any commercial enterprises that
may be established. It's something like Jack selling his cow for
beans.

These politicians fail to see the inestimable harm to the future of
transportation they commit when they close an airport, and you seem to
be guilty of the same lack of foresight. Once the cow is gone, there
won't be any more milk.

>> That is destined to change. Of curse it requires creative insight to
>> appreciate a new transportation system, but it will happen despite
>> those with their heads in the sand.
>
>If it changes, the change will eliminate GA and replace it with purely
>commercial air transport, essentially another tier of the existing
>commercial system.

Please provide a citation that supports your subjective opinion , that
"the change will eliminate GA." SATS is GA based!

If you're not going to make the effort to educate yourself, so that
you can make relivant comments and accurately contribute to the
discussion, you will lose my participation.

>> Read the SATS information available at the links above.
>
>I don't see how that information indicates that GA is any way of the
>future for anyone.

That comment reveals that you haven't invested the time and effort to
comprehend the SATS information.

>> Surely you don't believe that the air transportation system is
>> destined to remain static, do you?
>
>I think general aviation is in serious danger, so no, I don't believe
>that it will remain static. Just as there are no significant private
>railroads or trains, there may eventually be no private planes.

Just as sailors will always ply the seas, airmen will always navigate
the skies. To suggest otherwise is to fail to understand the human
spirit.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:
>
> I think general aviation is in serious danger, so no, I don't believe
> that it will remain static. Just as there are no significant private
> railroads or trains, there may eventually be no private planes.
>
And, how many centuries do expect we should wait to find out whether
you're right about that?

Your notion of "private planes" is pretty narrow if you think they'll be
eliminated by closing airports. Around here, there are a significant
number of _private airports_ on large parcels of _private land_ with
pilots that share these resources so that other _private planes_ have a
place to come and go at will. Unless someone starts confiscating property
en masse, I can't see your vision coming true. And, should someone decide
to start confiscating property en masse, I'd point out that pilots are the
single most heavily armed group of citizens that I know of short of those
that belong to a militia as a hobby.

Neil

[Emily[_1_]]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:49:49 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote in >:
>
>> Larry Dighera writes:
>>
>>> My viewpoint is based on the future path NASA and the FAA have
>>> outlined here:
>> NASA and the FAA don't make policy, they follow it. Without a public
>> interest in what they propose, it won't happen.
>
> Show me a member of the flying "public" that is not interested in
> avoiding the tiring drive on congested highways to the international
> airport.

Well, me, for one. I live closer and a shorter trip to one of those
international airports than any other airport.

Now, if I could get on another plane at a longer airport without being
searched and harassed, we might talk. But it would have to justify the
hour drive.

[Steven P. McNicoll[_1_]]

"Emily" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Show me a member of the flying "public" that is not interested in
>> avoiding the tiring drive on congested highways to the international
>> airport.
>
> Well, me, for one. I live closer and a shorter trip to one of those
> international airports than any other airport.
>
> Now, if I could get on another plane at a longer airport without being
> searched and harassed, we might talk. But it would have to justify the
> hour drive.
>

Because it's a tiring drive on congested highways?

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:22:25 -0500, Emily >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 19:49:49 +0200, Mxsmanic >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>> Larry Dighera writes:
>>>
>>>> My viewpoint is based on the future path NASA and the FAA have
>>>> outlined here:
>>> NASA and the FAA don't make policy, they follow it. Without a public
>>> interest in what they propose, it won't happen.
>>
>> Show me a member of the flying "public" that is not interested in
>> avoiding the tiring drive on congested highways to the international
>> airport.
>
>Well, me, for one. I live closer and a shorter trip to one of those
>international airports than any other airport.
>
>Now, if I could get on another plane at a longer airport without being
>searched and harassed, we might talk. But it would have to justify the
>hour drive.


But, if the nearby large airport you currently use were to pose too
large an environmental issue at some time in the (distant?) future
(due to scramjet operations, or noise, or other concerns), it might be
replaced with an airport located on isolated land out in the rural
wilderness away from the complaints of nearby residents. Then SATS
would provide you with transport to and from the new international
airport.

In the case of the municipality with a smaller GA airport, SATS would
immediately provide access to the a more distant international
airport, saving the passengers from the tiring drive on congested
highways. SATS makes the airline hub-and-spoke system more workable.
At least, that's the way I understand it.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> How did you arrive at that conclusion?

From the fact that this is how it works now.

> The GA airports that I fly out of
> have "commercial airline services" of the type that I've described, above.
> They are _charter services_, corporate and coop services, all of which are
> flying under Part 135.

That's not quite the same as an American Airlines, though. The market
is different, the volumes are smaller, etc.

> It is precisely their difference from the
> necessities of large carriers that make them viable, and part of that
> viability is the far greater number of airports that can accommodate them.

So it's not clear that a change would be for the better.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Show me a member of the flying "public" that is not interested in
> avoiding the tiring drive on congested highways to the international
> airport.

What do you mean by the "flying public"?

> What makes you think there is no public support for SATS?

The absence of that support.

> SATS removes the necessity for airline passengers to drive by
> automobile to and from a distant airport to engage in airline travel.
> It also enables airline hub airports to be relocated in sparsely
> populated areas, thus removing airliner noise and surface traffic
> congestion from metropolitan areas. Show me a member of the "public"
> who relishes noise and traffic congestion. The motivation for public
> support of SATS is already latent, and through education it will be
> brought to the fore.

How do you ensure security? Do you sterilize every airstrip in the
country and staff it with two dozen TSA screeners and
multimillion-dollar scanners?

Do you upgrade every airstrip so that it allows landings in all
conditions, so that regular air service won't be hindered by weather?
Are you prepared to see private pilots crowded out by corporations?

Just be careful what you wish for. Private pilots have a view of
aviation that the rest of the world does not share, and attracting
attention to their little corner of aviation can backfire, as I have
already explained.

> Please provide a citation for credible evidence that supports your
> notion that SATS "usurps certain aspects of GA." Which aspects of GA
> do you feel would be usurped?

Anything that doesn't make money for large corporations providing air
travel.

> The real estate upon which rests this nation's airports has become
> valuable as burgeoning population growth ever encroaches, and the
> nature of the property turns from rural to suburban and urban. The
> cities are greedy for a larger tax base, and see selling the, now
> valuable, real estate to developers as a double win: revenue from the
> sale, and property tax revenue from the new owners, not to mention
> sales taxes that may be collected on any commercial enterprises that
> may be established.

Yes, so?

> These politicians fail to see the inestimable harm to the future of
> transportation they commit when they close an airport, and you seem to
> be guilty of the same lack of foresight. Once the cow is gone, there
> won't be any more milk.

I don't see any "inestimable harm" in closing a small GA airport. I
might not favor such a closure myself, but I can't really substantiate
any claims that it would harm society at large, and neither can you.

> Please provide a citation that supports your subjective opinion, that
> "the change will eliminate GA." SATS is GA based!

Why do I need cites to support my opinions, if you don't?

> If you're not going to make the effort to educate yourself, so that
> you can make relivant comments and accurately contribute to the
> discussion, you will lose my participation.

See above. Except that I'm willing to discuss things without "cites,"
because I know better than to depend on that tired old technique.

> That comment reveals that you haven't invested the time and effort to
> comprehend the SATS information.

The absence of an answer implies that you don't have one.

> Just as sailors will always ply the seas, airmen will always navigate
> the skies. To suggest otherwise is to fail to understand the human
> spirit.

Sailors don't ply the seas as they used to.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> And, how many centuries do expect we should wait to find out whether
> you're right about that?

It could happen tomorrow.

> Your notion of "private planes" is pretty narrow if you think they'll be
> eliminated by closing airports.

That's not what I think. But it would take very little to see all
PPLs suspended indefinitely in the U.S. One nutcase crashing into a
city with a load of anthrax aboard in his private plane, and you could
all say goodbye to your "right" to be private pilots. Things can
happen fast when hysteria rules, and hysteria is increasingly the norm
in society.

Right now, private pilots are protected by the fact that most of the
public doesn't know anything about private pilots, and so they don't
object to them. But put this type of aviation into the spotlight, and
people will start to worry about it (with help from the media and
politicians), until there is an outcry for "protection" from the
"dangers" of letting "anyone" fly.

Using GA airports for anything with a broad consumer base, such as
conventional commercial airlines, would risk drawing too much
attention to them and their users. Since most people don't care about
any type of aviation except the type that takes them where they want
to do, they'd rather close and airport and prevent non-commercial
pilots from flying than take the "risk" of "terrorists" threatening
the country with their little planes. Is that what you want?

> Around here, there are a significant
> number of _private airports_ on large parcels of _private land_ with
> pilots that share these resources so that other _private planes_ have a
> place to come and go at will.

That could change overnight.

> Unless someone starts confiscating property en masse, I can't see
> your vision coming true.

Private aviation could be prohibited with a stroke of the pen.
Private pilots are not numerous enough in society to prevent this from
happening, or to reverse it once it occurs. They are a tiny minority,
protected from the majority by near-invisibility. If they make
themselves too visible, they become targets of opportunity.

> And, should someone decide
> to start confiscating property en masse, I'd point out that pilots are the
> single most heavily armed group of citizens that I know of short of those
> that belong to a militia as a hobby.

Unless they intend to overthrow the government, that doesn't matter.
And if they do intend to overthrow the government, then perhaps there
might be some justification to the concerns that the rest of society
might have.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 07:42:29 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Neil Gould writes:
>
>> How did you arrive at that conclusion?
>
>From the fact that this is how it works now.
>
>> The GA airports that I fly out of
>> have "commercial airline services" of the type that I've described, above.
>> They are _charter services_, corporate and coop services, all of which are
>> flying under Part 135.
>
>That's not quite the same as an American Airlines, though. The market
>is different, the volumes are smaller, etc.
>
>> It is precisely their difference from the
>> necessities of large carriers that make them viable, and part of that
>> viability is the far greater number of airports that can accommodate them.
>
>So it's not clear that a change would be for the better.

Have you seen how many times 'mxsmanic' is posting into this group?
His only knowlwdge is Flight Sim!!!!