Now that Allegiant has pulled out, as I have said before, I think it will be quite difficult to get another commercial airline to commit to ORH in the short-term. That leaves us with two options to reduce a $2,300,000 deficit either 1) cut expenses (as Jahn as pointed out numerous times) or 2) increase General Aviation revenues. I am going to request a break-down of expenses and forward it to Jahn. Lets take a moment and read a comment last week from an anoymous blogger that I think is worth of a second look:
We need to scale back and look at what we have and support that. We have GA business there doing well. Lets see how we can support them. Maybe incentives of some sort. Like we will fix the roof that leaks or we will fix the heat for the winter. We 13 or so colleges in the area. There must be people going to them that want to fly. I would say all of the business at ORH would do better if accomadations were better. Offer real low lease of land if they will build a building. Offer a long time lease if they will build.
Make whatever it is appealing to business. Every business in aviation is crucial to which airport they go to. That airport will make or break a business. So the business must ask, why should I go to ORH? What does this airport have to offer that will benefit me the most? This is were incentives comes in to play. But whatever it is. Make it availible NOW. People want to build NOW. Not when the study is done or the master plan is done. Most other airports around have land avialible now. Even if more than 1 party is interested in it. It's first come first serve.
People from other airports like to train here because it has all the good stuff without the traffic. But they will not stop here because there is no reason to. They don't even know anything is there except for expensive fuel. Lets capitolize on what we have. Not what we don't have. You can't build a house without a foundation. We have the start of a foundation but we to finish it. We have awsome runways and taxiways with lots and lots of room. Pilots say all the time that this place is great. Meaning, flying into it and getting around by plane. We have the potential for great foundation. But WE need to build it from the bottom up 1 brick at a time. The city has a problem of jumping into a pool before they know how to swim.
Rome wasn't built in a day.
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
10 comments:
Dave:
I was under the impression that smaller airports like ORH could only handle one FBO. Great point.
Bill Randell
Dave:
I graduated from BC in 1986 and my room-mate for 4 years lived on Buttonwoods Ave in Warwick. He lived as close as to TF Green as someone who live on Assabet or Scenic up at West Tatnuck.
From 1982-1986, TF Green had a larger facility and better services then ORH, but not by alot.. People always say SouthWest put TF Greeen over the top and maybe it did, but every year since the first time I went to his house TF Green pulled away from ORH.
True, Rome was not built in a day but there was progress every year at TF Green.
If memory serves well, Green went through at least one and poss. two large expansions back in the 80's. I think it was runway expansion b/c they took many houses and property (by eminent domain I assume). Poss. many, many, many properties.
Now contrast that to the mindset in Worc where a handful of property owners can bring progress to a ROAR'ing halt, aided and abetted by the pols in power at the time.
I am not saying an acess road was the answer or an answer at the time.
This Mill St corridor study may partially solve some of the access probs. I just hope the 146 project leaves a footprint big enough for future exapnsion at brosnihan Sq
Jahn:
Runway expansion, I remember the boarded up houses.. Right now the access road is off the table.
We need to gain some momentum first and then we can talk about things like that. For what it is worth I still say the best access road is off the Mass Pike onto ROute 56 in Leicester.
It would alleviate many of the problems that we have with people driving west of the City across the City. In addition the tolls themselbes from this new exist would help pay for the construction.
By the Airport Drive is still under construction!!!
Provincetown only has 1 3500' runway. Cape Air flies Cessna 402 which requires less runway. Less maintenance required.
Worcester has to maintain maintenance personnel to be on call 24/7 for snow removal,repairs to facilities. Also Airport police and fire need to be maintened 24/7 as well. Worcester caters to larger aircraft as well.
Bill, I think you start a clock that logs how many hours or days until we start reducing personnel costs. Assuming there is no new comm. jet service on the horizon, some one please give me some reasons that we cannot start cutting costs NOW. Sometimes I sense an entitlement mentality up there.
Why cant the Worc fire & police depts provide service up there on an as needed basis just as they do for the other 99.99% of the city?
Why cant the DPW be on call for snow plowing, just as they are for the other 27,000,000 ft of city streets?
Repairs and mainteneance personnel on demand? No problem! Let the repiar wait 7 years, just like street re surfacing program or 12 years a la The Rogers Memorial..
You make some valid points Jahn, but it seems like Worcester is in a Catch -22 situation.
Can't decertify for commercial operations because Worcester would have to pay back grant $$'s if I'm not mistaken. As long as the airport is certified we get to keep grant$$.
As long as were certified I believe you can reduce fire and police personnel, but a presence must be maintained on the field.
As for maintenance and custodial personnel, I don't think there is any law or statute that requires a presence needed to be maintained at airport. You make a valid suggestion about utilizing DPW and other city personnel. Re-assign the current personnel to other Departments
Just some ramdom thoughts here.
Could we privatize some or all of these functions and save the City taxpayers some money?
Does one have to be a muncipal cop or fireman to staff the airport? How about some these guys who go around putting out oil well fires. They must have some pretty heavy duty experience. Would they be allowed to train for FAA certification?
Ditto for snow plowing. The majority of Worcs. plowing is done by private contrators now and I think most if not all schools are plowed by privates
Disney World has a completely private police & fire dept.
Dave and Steve, thanks for the responses. So much for privatization. These unfunded fed'l & state mandates, again cost he City millions.
Should we lobby at least on beacon hill to change the rules?
The Airport s/b Customer and taxpayer centric and not labor centric
My understanding is that only the deficit is funded by Massport and many factors contribute to the defivit other than just labor costs.
How much funding do we get from FAA and does it cover the add'l costs that are incurred as a result of these mandates?
If decide to opt out of 139 i guess we will also lose FAA funding, too?
Post a Comment