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.
Egg Donors Fight the Oocyte Cartel
-
*Alex Tabarrok* explores the world of egg donation, which is heavily
regulated by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) and
the America...
50 minutes ago
24 comments:
New Bedford Regional Airport seems to have a great system going. They are smaller than ORH, yet they have 3 FBO's on site as well as a restaurant. Additionally, they house the Delta Academy, which is a flight school that is partnered with the Bridgewater State College aviation program. The airport is also a bae for Cape Cod Air. The variety of services offered there is a good model for Worcester.
Dave:
I was under the impression that smaller airports like ORH could only handle one FBO. Great point.
Bill Randell
I was looking at the layout of TF Green airport recently. Interestingly enough, I found that it is very similar in size to ORH (acreage, runway lengths etc). Green looks much larger because of the layout and traffic, not to mention the variety of aviation related services on the northside of the field. Just found it interesting that 2 airports of similar size have such opposite success.
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.
It look's like progress will continue at Green. Take a look at thier master plan and thier passenger projections, it's pretty interesting. They really did something right there.
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
Good point about the access road. I think it's safe to say that the access road could not have hurt the airport. Whether or not it would be a saving grace, who really knows at this point. According to their master plan, Green will be expanding runways in the future, possibly acquiring more property. I guess when they see progress, they jump on it.
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!!!
I just found this:
http://www.provincetowngov.org/twn_mtg/0604/FY2007BudgetSummary.pdf
The Provincetown Airport annual budget is $88,000. Cape Air flies into Provincetown.
Why does Worcester need to spend $3,500,000 per year when Provincetown can do it for $88,000?
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.
Rick said...
"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."
Why?
I was told it was because they needed it to maintain a part 139 certification, which is required for airline service.
Why can Cape Air operate out of PVC if they don't have 24/7 maintenance, fire and poilce?
My point here is to wonder if Worcester could scale back to the service levels at Provincetown.
If a 3500' runway costs $90,000 to operate, why can't a 7000' runway be operated for $180,000?
Seems like a better alternative to closing.
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
rick said...
"Can't decertify for commercial operations because Worcester would have to pay back grant $$'s if I'm not mistaken. As long as the airport is certified we get to keep grant$$"
Any idea how much $$ you're talking about?
The IMG report only discussed paying back grants if the airport were to close, not decertify.
It sounds all well and good, but:
Worcester Firefighter = city employee
Worcester Police Officer = city employee
Airport Police / firefighter = city employee
DPW worker = city employee
airport maintenance = city employee
Regardless of what dept. they work in, they're all paid by the city. City fire could cover the airport, true, but, the city would have to pay x amount of firefighters to go to aircraft fire school which is required by FAA, they would also have to become airfield certified, plus how would they work that with thier union? Do they send all 300+ city firefighters to the training and put it out for overtime? Botton line, it costs $. Worc. Police, would it be overtime rate to staff the airport 24/7? DPW, after spending days plowing out the city streets, now they have to plow the airport? More overtime for DPW, more personnel? Bottom line, it's going to cost the city money, regardless of what dept. it flows into. Reducing staff, I can see, but as long as they remain 139 certified, I don't see any benefit of laying off everyone there and letting it fall on the other city depts. All the depts up there are running at minimum now I believe.
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.
Jahn,
I talked to an acquaintance who worked at the airport as a police officer/firefighter about 10 years ago. He explained to me that police powers are granted either by the municipality or by the state police. In this case, they would have to be granted by the city. For liability purposes, in order to be granted police status, one would have to complete an approved police training academy. So in reality, you would be duplicating an agency. Plus, from what I was told, there are no private police agencies in Mass (colleges and hospitals exception) because they cannot meet state requirements. Also, similar with the fire dept. There are no private fire depts. in Mass. I was also told that unions that represent fire and police agencies would not let this happen. Plus again, even if there was this option, it would cost money, again duplicating an existing service. As far as plow driver's, that could be contracted. Btw, if you look at the city website, they're hiring p/t plow driver's for the airport.
Of the $1,333,074.15 submitted for FY2007 salaries at ORH, only $309,005.60 is for security guard crash crewman, including 1 principal security guard crash crewman.
If this is the only position needed to maintain the part 139 certification, eliminating the other $1,024,068.55 sounds like a no-brainer.
To my understanding, the police/fire dept. has always been staffed with the bare minimum. I believe they have 7 or 8 people now. So figure that between 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Factor in overtime for vacation, sick days, whatever. In the long run, it may be more cost effective to hire 1 or 2 more. Personally, I don't think the city will let 139 certification go. Just to look at this from another view, what do you do with an airport that size restricted to GA? From time to time, large jets land there, whether it's for fuel, a private charter, whatever the reason. What are told when they request to land... "no, sorry, you can't land on our 7,000 foot GA runway because we laid off our crash crew", or " sorry but, we only have 3500 feet of our runway cleared of snow"? I agree that they should focus more on GA and development, but I just can't see them willingly let 139 go.
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
Dave,
After poking around Part 139, it looks like it's only required for scheduled air service over 19 passengers. That's why Cape Air can operate out of PVC. That wouldn't stop a 737 from landing.
Jahn,
Retaining the part 139 certification is a choice made by Worcester. It's not a mandate, and is it heavily funded by Massport and the FAA.
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?
To my understanding, there are various FAA grants available for various types of aviation. Obviously, the larger grants go toward part 139 airports. There are grants available for GA airfields, but I believe they are much smaller. Most equipment required at a commercial airport can be purchased with FAA grants (ie plow trucks, fire trucks, etc.) I'm not sure what happens when commercial operations cease. I have heard that the city may have to pay back a portion of these grants if they downscale. I'll try to find out more concrete information.
Post a Comment