Gloom

Kevin Clarke wrote:
I do not get this argument. I would like to understand it. But why is
the little podunk airport important? 3B3 Sterling, Mass, offers very
little to the local economy, if anything. KFIT, my home base, offers
very little to the local economy, a couple of shops, a restaurant, a few
commercial flights (Part 135) per week. Are they that big a deal?
KC

On the expense side to the argument you could say that the airport is
keeping taxes down. It pays some taxes to the town and uses very little
resources.

That big flat area of land is probably very desirable a residential
developer. I'm not sure how much land 3B3 sits on, but say they put 150
homes on 100 acres. If each home pays about $3,600/year in property
taxes, and has on average one school age child, that development is a
big money loser for the town since it costs Sterling $6,570 per year per
student (publicschoolreview.com). New homes are often purchased by young
families. Also, the costs for the town go way up if there's more than
one child in the family while property taxes don't change.

I see the Board of Education in Sterling wanted a 13.5% increase this
year, and the Selectmen wanted to hold it down to _only_ 9.9%. Since
Sterling now has about 1400 K-12 students (from city-data.com) Adding
another 150 students would make that 9.9% increase budget go up to a
10.6% increase, assuming a linear increase and new facilities aren't
needed.

This is only the education numbers. There are all the other service
needs residential development creates like road maintenance, police/fire
protection, library, tax collector services, etc.

Another indication of the reducued flying.

http://www.centennial-airport.com/PDF/Ops.pdf

Ron Lee

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
I do not get this argument. I would like to understand it. But why is
the little podunk airport important?

snip

Just curious: How many long cross-country flights have you made with
your family?

me, none. If you remember from a bygone thread, my wife won't fly w/ me.

I believe this is why you see so little utility in small-town
airports. Until you've been on a bunch of long cross-country flights
with your family, and flown into small-town America from coast to
coast, it's really hard to appreciate their essential nature.

Most of our trips utilize these smaller, less used airports, and it is
always a delight to visit them. This is where "real" America still
exists, and their existence allows us, as pilots, to drop in almost
anywhere across this vast continent.

All of this is, of course, aside from all the vital financial aid your
airport brings to your community. Everything from "Flight for Life"
helicopters, to charters, to little guys like us think of your airport
as your "Front Door" -- and, quite frankly, we don't go to towns that
don't have airports.

Of course, if the pilot community continues to dwindle, there won't be
enough of us flying to bring $$$ into those small towns, and those
airports will simply close. And THEN flying in America will really
have lost it's merit.

While I think small airports are really important, your "trying to get
pilots to agree to do anything is like trying to herd cats" remark comes to
mind. Where I plan on doing most of my flying, there is a small town
airport about every 20 to 30 miles along the only highway. The towns along
that highway work together on a lot of things, but if there ever was an
attempt by the airports to work together, it failed. Consequently, there is
no critical mass, one fly-in (there were 2 only a couple of years ago), and
the biggest of the airports appears to have the least going on.

I think they'd be a lot better off if:
1. They formed a regional coordination board.
2. Promoted the area as a fly-in vacation spot.
3. Decided which type of business worked best at each area, and promoted
those businesses to relocate there.
4. Had a regional Fly-in that rotated between the airports.

Ok, I'll bite, how do you come to this conclusion? Oh, I just realized where
you're coming from. I know, they'll get all their ratings, certificates and
experience by sitting in front of a computer and fiddling with a game.
Sounds like a great plan. NEXT.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck writes:

Perhaps -- but the majority of professional pilots are still trained
-- and hired by -- your local airport.

That can--and probably will--change in the future.

"Barney Rubble" wrote in message
...
Ok, I'll bite, how do you come to this conclusion?

"Take a man, and remove reason and accountability"

- Melvin Udall

"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
Another indication of the reducued flying.

http://www.centennial-airport.com/PDF/Ops.pdf


Actually, that looks pretty good. Flying was down significantly in 2006
over 2005 (which likely was caused by fuel prices), but hasn't dropped much
in 2007 over 2006.

"Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address)" wrote in
message ...

That big flat area of land is probably very desirable a residential
developer.

Was talking to NWPilot yesterday (he has a new story to tell!) about
Evergreen air park in Vancouver which was closed down after decades of
operation, for rampant housing development. I started thinking "This is an
echo of what the tribal Americans must have felt. Their functional way of
life crowded and closed out by a few people making big money off clueless
immigrant masses."

At some point, people have to draw the line and decide that land developers
and the officials they pay off don't always get to dictate what happens to
our communities or we will end up flying on the functional equivalent of
indian reservations. All we have to do is look to American history to see
what happened to the Seminole and the Cherokee (Pun intended) to see one
possible future.

-c

Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:07:22 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

concluded that General Aviation is no longer worth
pursuing

This may not have been decided quite as simplistically as you seem to
feel. Perhaps the conclusion was that Piper could not afford to catch up
with the likes of Cessna, Cirrus, whatever the company name is that builds
the Columbia 350/400, etc.

I was at a certain very large company a number of years ago that (1) spent
a lot of money on getting certain compilers developed and certified but
(2) chose to keep them out of the market because they couldn't compete
with the more lithe firms delivering equivalent products.

If it makes you feel better, the markets for those compilers still exist
(though there is plenty of linguistic competition {8^) and the company
that made that choice no longer exists (though the name lives on in a
rather ghoulish way {8^).

Digital?
CDC?
Univac?
Honeywell?

"Gatt" wrote in message
...

"Paul Dow (Remove Caps in mail address)" wrote in
message ...

That big flat area of land is probably very desirable a residential
developer.

Was talking to NWPilot yesterday (he has a new story to tell!) about
Evergreen air park in Vancouver which was closed down after decades of
operation, for rampant housing development. I started thinking "This is an
echo of what the tribal Americans must have felt. Their functional way of
life crowded and closed out by a few people making big money off clueless
immigrant masses."

At some point, people have to draw the line and decide that land
developers and the officials they pay off don't always get to dictate what
happens to our communities or we will end up flying on the functional
equivalent of indian reservations. All we have to do is look to American
history to see what happened to the Seminole and the Cherokee (Pun
intended) to see one possible future.

-c


http://members.tripod.com/airfields_...lds_WA_SW.html

I never went to Evergreen, but it was poorly located to deal with urban
sprawl (e.g. it couldn't have been more in the prime area for development if
they tried). But I wonder what might have happened if they had tried to
bring in a bunch of businesses that needed the airport to survive?

In article ,
Blanche wrote:

Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:07:22 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

concluded that General Aviation is no longer worth
pursuing

This may not have been decided quite as simplistically as you seem to
feel. Perhaps the conclusion was that Piper could not afford to catch up
with the likes of Cessna, Cirrus, whatever the company name is that builds
the Columbia 350/400, etc.

I was at a certain very large company a number of years ago that (1) spent
a lot of money on getting certain compilers developed and certified but
(2) chose to keep them out of the market because they couldn't compete
with the more lithe firms delivering equivalent products.

If it makes you feel better, the markets for those compilers still exist
(though there is plenty of linguistic competition {8^) and the company
that made that choice no longer exists (though the name lives on in a
rather ghoulish way {8^).

Digital?
CDC?
Univac?
Honeywell?

Data General?