death of GA in NY

W P Dixon wrote:
I know what you are saying,
I have alot of friends here that will not fly to a airport with fees,
they hate them like I do. I wonder if it's just a southern thing?

Since I'm merely a visiting Yankee with long term privileges, I am
sometimes ignorant of such things. So I just go, land, say Hi, and
leave... usually without fees.

Skylune wrote:
That's a good question. I think the answer is "none", it's done for
commercial reasons, not to support recreational boating. But I'm not
sure.

There are several in Tennessee. Tellico and Reelfoot were both primarily created
for recreation, though other spurious arguments were presented to Congress. Even
ex-senator Baker now feels that he bought a line of bull with regard to Tellico
and would never support it now.

In general, the older the project, the less recreation had to do with its
construction. Norris, for example, was intended mainly to put people to work
during the depression. Fontana was built to provide electricity for the
anticipated atomic bomb production line. Loudon was built for flood control, as
were several other TVA projects.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Well then, that's another example of outrageous pork spending for special
interests (recreational boaters) that serve no national interest, using a
pretext of serving some other national good. But, at least the feds don't
also pay annual operating subsidies to keep the marina dock fees
artificially low.


Its like the GA airport near me that receives $150K per year operating
subsidy from the FAA and will receive a 95% grant from the AIP for
"safety" improvements. The "safety" improvements include a proposal to
lengthen the runway by 500 feet (to 6000 feet!) and/or construct a second
parallel runway. Over 95% of the traffic at the airport is small GA, so
why do they need to extend for "safety?" Answer: they don't. They are
liars, and want to maximize the profits of the FBOs (by attracting larger
jets and increasing weather tolerances), who the airport board panders to.

Skylune wrote:
Well then, that's another example of outrageous pork spending for special
interests (recreational boaters) that serve no national interest, using a
pretext of serving some other national good.

Well, Tellico doesn't meet my definition of pork barrel spending. To me, a
project that spends most of the money outside the building area isn't really
pork barrel. The primary driver for Tellico was basically to increase the size
and power of TVA. Like most dams, it was built in a sparsely populated area, so
all supplies had to be brought in from outside. Since the Feds were footing the
bill, most came from outside the State. As is the case with most (perhaps all)
Federal projects at that time, all workers were union members. Unions don't just
grab people off the street and hand them journeyman cards, so most of the
workers came from out of State.

Basically, with the vast majority of the materials and labor coming from
outside, Tennessee got very little out of the deal, which is why I wouldn't call
it a pork barrel project. The legislature, in fact, tried to stop the project.
Land for the impoundment was taken at the tax appraisal value (typically about
30% of market at that time). Huge areas of land surrounding the impoundment were
also taken by TVA. TVA is now selling the lakefront pieces off to developers and
leasing the remainder back to the original owners.

Tellico has basically turned out to be a massive real estate deal and little
else. Of the original claims for "improvement", the only thing that has happened
is that trout have been replaced by bass and canoes by bass boats.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

I have to agree that that particular project is not classic pork-barrel
spending, especially since the locals/state opposed it. I'm obviously not
familiar with the particulars.

One question though: did the original project in fact increase the
generation capacity of the TVA?

Skylune wrote:

One question though: did the original project in fact increase the
generation capacity of the TVA?

A little. The dam is not at a good location for hydro. One of the facts
presented during the original proposal was that the dam would not generate
enough electricity over its lifespan to begin to repay the cost of construction.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

The bureaucrats look at grants like businesspoeple look at sales. Bringing
in more money is always better. I don't think they're doing safety
improvements to bring in more business, or even to improve safety. They're
protecting their fifedom, and bringing in more dollars. I doubt it's even to
increast business for the FBOs.


"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

Its like the GA airport near me that receives $150K per year operating
subsidy from the FAA and will receive a 95% grant from the AIP for
"safety" improvements. The "safety" improvements include a proposal to
lengthen the runway by 500 feet (to 6000 feet!) and/or construct a second
parallel runway. Over 95% of the traffic at the airport is small GA, so
why do they need to extend for "safety?" Answer: they don't. They are
liars, and want to maximize the profits of the FBOs (by attracting larger
jets and increasing weather tolerances), who the airport board panders to.

Well, it is totally insulting to portray runway extensions and second
runway options as necessary for safety, and that's what these guys are
doing. Absolutely insulting, and they are trying to pull a fast one on
the community. They think of the general public as stupid, and they are
arrogant: that will be their undoing.

No one wants to close the airport down. (Well, some of the Luddites from
Stop the Noise may want to, but not realistic people.) We just want them
to be responsible and not stick their hands in our wallets.

They do need to move the existing runway about 500 feet from the taxiway
to meet FAA regulations because of the increase in operations and
increased usage by private jets: thats the safety part. But they wrap
the expansion (which is what they REALLY want) into the safety language.
What BS. Its a total lie by an airport that has proven over and over
(whether it be concern for taxpayers, disregard of noise abatement, water
pollution regs, you name it...) that it just doesn't give a damn about the
community. And, as you can tell, some of us are really ****ed....

This airport is in total contrast to FRG: I lived about 4 nm from that
VERY busy airport until recently. Never made a single noise complaint.
Could hear the airplanes, but rarely if ever were we buzzed.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message Not much. In the seventies and eighties
it was a substantial
proportion, but we don't use that many pilots in the military
these days so there aren't that many transitioning into civil
careers.

Additionally, most regional airlines now fly turbofan aircraft which negates
the advantage of jet time that the airlines favored in hiring military
pilots.

D.

I wish I could believe your airport group was that dedicated to the airport.
From what I've seen around here, they see what grants are available, and
then try to figure out how to get some of the money. They will apply for
whatever projects they can come up with that in some way fit into the grant
program.

In your case, I would guess that they heard there was money available to
increase safety. They said to themselves "How can we get some of this? Maybe
we could extend the runways and call it a safety improvement"

They're calling it a safety improvement because that's where the money is.
It also makes them look good by bringing money into the local economy.




"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Well, it is totally insulting to portray runway extensions and second
runway options as necessary for safety, and that's what these guys are
doing. Absolutely insulting, and they are trying to pull a fast one on
the community. They think of the general public as stupid, and they are
arrogant: that will be their undoing.

No one wants to close the airport down. (Well, some of the Luddites from
Stop the Noise may want to, but not realistic people.) We just want them
to be responsible and not stick their hands in our wallets.

They do need to move the existing runway about 500 feet from the taxiway
to meet FAA regulations because of the increase in operations and
increased usage by private jets: thats the safety part. But they wrap
the expansion (which is what they REALLY want) into the safety language.
What BS. Its a total lie by an airport that has proven over and over
(whether it be concern for taxpayers, disregard of noise abatement, water
pollution regs, you name it...) that it just doesn't give a damn about the
community. And, as you can tell, some of us are really ****ed....

This airport is in total contrast to FRG: I lived about 4 nm from that
VERY busy airport until recently. Never made a single noise complaint.
Could hear the airplanes, but rarely if ever were we buzzed.