We do not have a County Gov't to take over our airport, other then that the similarities are startling.... Just insert MassPort where it says Pierce County.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/story/5744383p-5140152c.html
If the City of Tacoma and its airport were a married couple, they’d be heading for divorce court.
Tacoma’s looking for a way to walk away from this unhappy, 43-year relationship. Fortunately, at least one suitor may be waiting in the wings for the unwanted Tacoma Narrows Airport.
Sometimes such breakups are for the best, and the former partners do better apart than they did together. That very well may be the case for the Narrows airport, which has not thrived under what some observers have described as the city’s neglectful management.
Tacoma City Manager Eric Anderson has recommended that the City Council consider closing the airport or transferring it to some other entity. The Port of Tacoma and Gig Harbor once looked at taking it over, but decided against it. But now Pierce County Councilman Terry Lee, who represents the Gig Harbor Peninsula, where the airport is located, has suggested that the county look into taking over its operation.
Lee’s rationale – to keep the airport from being taken over by another entity that might expand operations in order to make money – has struck some as curious. Tacoma’s complaint about the airport, after all, was that it was a money pit. But Lee’s on the right track. The airport is in the unincorporated county, which makes it a better possible steward than Tacoma. Many of the airport’s problems can be traced to the fact that it’s outside the city, and planning must be coordinated with the county and Gig Harbor.
If the airport were better managed, some say, it’s possible that it could break even or even make money without increasing the number of flights in and out – and the number of complaints from neighbors. Given the key roles the airport plays in civilian aviation, medical airlifts and possible emergency response, every avenue should be explored to try to keep it operating. Lee plans to talk about this proposal later this month with County Executive John Ladenburg and the Federal Aviation Administration.
Keeping the airport open – while keeping a lid on the amount of air traffic – are both worthwhile goals. If Tacoma is no longer interested in making the relationship work, it should step aside and give someone else a chance.
WRRB/Telegram District City Council Forum 10/18
-
This forum is for all district council candidates; all candidates are here
today. Format: 14 total questions, 4 questions across districts (for all
candida...
6 months ago
13 comments:
If Massport does takeover, my only concern is are we just changing the "team" name and keeping the same players we have now?
Is Massport even interested?
Carl:
This would be much more then just changing the team name. Let me explain.
Initially I thought MassPort had not exerted the influence, that they have, to help ORH. After spending some time the past couple years reviewing the agreements, meeting with the ORH administration, trying to get any answers from our ORH administration, I truly believe that we should be thankful to MassPort for saving us the past 5 years with one more year to go.
How can we truly expect MassPort to spend their time working on ORH, when the agreement ends in every three years??? You can not.
At the same time MassPort knows that airports are a very limited commodity and they have limitd space. If we presented ourselves as a willing seller, they would buy.
If they bought ORH, the benefits to Worcester would be immeasurable.
Thanks
Bill
Put yourself in the shoes of a potential buyer of the airport. It would have to sell for firesale prices if huge capital outlays are required to make the place competitive.
Also will federal largess pay millions for capital upgrades to a privately owned airport. I would think not? Does anyone here know?
The consensus seems to be the airport needs a modernized and upgraded landing system to be even begin to be competitive.
It may also need runway extensions or additional runways?
It may also need an access road that the city council does not have the political backbone to support even when the airport is owned by the city. Can anyone see the council supporting land takings for a road when a private company will be the primary beneficiary and the city a secondary beneficiary (a new intra-city partial beltway transportation system)?
I think it may be best to see if the city can get the federal money for needed upgrades and if it still doesnt work out, at least then the place can be leased or sold for a higher price with modernized and upgraded infrastructure that the feds will have paid for.
Hindsight is always great, but building a new terminal with all the strings that come attached to it is like demolishing a 1 bedroom bugalow and building a new 5 bedroom house with only 10% of your own money, knowing full well that the current septic system and well are not up to the task and when the septic eventually fails and pollutes the well, you have to ask your rich uncle (hopefully) for more money.
A potential buyer of your 5 bedroom home will discount it greatly for the unknown future costs for capital improvements that must be made.
Bottom line, I say get the upgrades done and then lease the place long term to a private company.
If it still doesnt work out then sell it.
There is far to much land up there to risk selling for short money, due to all the unknowns.
Let's give Massport credit for knowing what they are doing. They have been up at the airport and know the airport inside and out. The capital expenditures like increasing hangar space, installing a new fuel storage facility, runway improvements etc. can be acomplished.
Let Massport have a chance. Worcester had theirs.
Anonymous:
Great post.. By the way when I say sell. It can mean either an outright sale or a long-term lease (99 years). Bottom line is that potential investor needs to see a return.
Time for Massport to takeover.
Make the airport competitive.
Worcester ,you deserve nothing less. As taxpayers we're tired of subsidizing both personnel and material.They had their chance to work together.
If Massport can get the capital improvements done without cost to the city, then I say fine. I assume all improvements belong to the city.
Massport may well understand the airport in terms of physical plant and equipment. Yes, they have been up at the airport now for 5 years and surely know many aspects of it inside out, yet we still only have one airline and four flights per week and Massport had nothing to do with it.
Massport has failed to market the place or has not marketed the airport at all! This is their weak side. Have they ever really had to market such a facility? Maybe this is not part of their deal with the city?
What in house or contracted talent pool do they have that is up to the task? Marketing Logan is basically dealing with a substantially captive audience so how much marketing finese does one need, especially when your facility is at 100% capcity utilization. Marketing at Logan is not unlike the Post Office monopoly advertising on TV.
If we re-up with Massport for 5 more, we should set some marketing goals and maybe get them to get the Fed to ante up for an upgraded landing system.
I am also concerned that if we are going to continue down the leisure market road and we have already tapped quite heavily into the Orlando market then what other leisure markets are left? I am assuming here that Orlando is THE BIGGEST leisure market. Las Vegas. OK, quite possibly. Then what? SW Florida?
My point is that we have already very successfully tapped the Mother Lode of warm weather leisure travel markets during the last NEw England winter. What's next? The newspaper claims everyone is tight lipped about our next potential carrier. I truly hope that this is Mr O'Brien again playing his hand close to the vest.
Or sometimes wisemen say nothing when there is nothing to be said?
Greatinsights being posted here.
This shows hopefully that people outside the scope of the airport community is starting to take real interest in the assets of their community.
I agree that the warm weather markets are a band-aid. Don't get me wrong ,Allegiant should be commended for supporting ORH, but the airport has had these leisure airlines before.
Why should MassPort bust their a-- to market ORH? Seriously think about it... What if they do a great job and send all sorts of business to ORH, sure their subsidy to Worcester may drop a bit but why would they want to help out a competitive airport?
MassPort has given us money to stay afloat, but it was our job not theirs to market the airport and we have failed. Sell ORH (outright sale or long-term lease) and they will not have a vester interest to market ORH.
The Leisure Market was just the first step to get ORH back on the map.. Once we establish ourselves then we move forward from there. Rockford, out role model, did this exact thing and now have United flying to Denver.
SELL ORH
I agree with Bill. It was Worcester's job to market the airport. Problem is too many cooks spoil the pot. People with good intentions that try to be supportive soon find out that there are too cooks spoiling the pot.
Massport may not be the best answer, but at least it's a larger political orginization with larger pockets and a deeper personnel pool to draw from.
The gravy train has to end @ ORH.
As a taxpayer we can't afford to subsidize the airport anymore
BIll and Rick, that is why I asked who had the marketing task.
Bill, if Logan is at capacity utilization as the the Globe has written and if longer amounts of time are now required between arrivals and departures then it doesn't hurt Logan because they cant handle any additional load, if my recollection is correct.
They may not even have to engage in an active marketing program. As airlines approach them for slots that they dont have they can always tout Worcester as an alternative. Jet Blue sending 1-2 flights per day is an example
Let them land for free as an inducement. Most of our costs up there are fixed anyway without regard to how much air trafiic we have. We could handle 10, 20, 30 more flights a day and what is our out of pocket incremental expense? Nothing or very, very little.
Rick, I agree too many chefs spoil the meal and then the finger pointing begins when failure is upon us.
I just dont want to give the place away for what may end up being short money. Eventually Logan will burst at the seams and Worc or Handscome is the best alternative from Natick/495/ Framingham westward. Massport staying on is fine with me. Further upgrades in conjunction with Massport at Washingtons expense is even better.
Worcester Incurring a continued loss up there makes my blood boil. Let us get some expenses under control with an outsourced or contracted workforce NOW.
Bill, have you asked city hall for more detailed figures regarding the 3rd Q reports? E.g. wage breakdown per employee/position, ordinary maintenance expense detail, OT detail, number of employees working, number of employess not working (IOD), any employee expense buried in the maintenance account, etc.
Bill, also exactly what does debt service mean? Paying down the loan only, paying the interest only or paying both and is the Total monthly nut on each obligation up there a fixed dollar amount and at what interest rate? Have we taken on any more debt to buy equipment or heaven forbid to pay ordinary maintenance?
Anonymous:
I put up a post today (Sunday May 21) as to why I feel MassPort will never market our airport--check it out.
In general I agree with everything that you say except one thing. You mentioned that the City maybe should look into Federal monies to do the upgrades ourselves. Your arguement makes sense, do the upgrades and lease/sell for more.
Do me a favor, drive over Airport Drive. The road is a complete mess and has been this way for over a year and it does not even look close to finishing..
I can only imagine how long it would take to accomplish these improvements.
Post a Comment