- no commercial flights
- little general aviation activity
- required never to finish the Master Plan
- never spend the DOT grant monies
- quiet surroundings
- you can lose millions and nobody will question you
- do not have to answer any questions to the press or anyone else
- great benefits
- annual salary $106,370
When was the last time anyone has heard or seen our Airport Director?
16 comments:
Off the topic, but I saw a recent aerial photo of ORH. The design of it is outdated. It looks the same as it did 40 years ago maybe + a few buildings. If they had redesigned the airport, I would tend to believe they would have more success. Why would an airline want to serve an airport when they can handle only about 2 jets at a time? TF Green and Worcester are virtually identical in size, yet Green has a much more modern layout and can accomodate several airliners at once. It's time for someone to wake up and realize all the wasted space up there.
David
They need TWO runways. A second one must be added. A major flaw in the ORH design is that the terminal is in a bad location. It should be on the edge of the property, so as to allow for airside expansion.
Another major challenge is that the airport was not developed into a military presence. True, Hanscom isn't much but Bradley and Westover were/are military installations. They are eligible for defense money. Worcester has a flight school and some vending machines.
There are only three airports in this state that serve locations other than the cape with passenger service:
1. Logan
2. Hanscom
3. Westover
Only 1 and 3 travel beyond New England. When is Worcester going to get the picture?
I mean that they need THREE runways and better apron/taxiway design.
David:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but here are the facts.
Worcester has six gates, two with jetways and two capable of handling jets but with no jetways at this time.
Worcester has and can handle more than two jets at one time.
These are trying times for the aviation industry, but I'm sure the airport is endeavering to provide 5-star service
5 star service???
I'm sure there is a desire at Worcester to provide excellent service, but I'm still adamint that the set up is obsolete. The old tower building should be demoed and that area used to expand passenger service. The rental car lot should be used to expand the terminal/passenger services. The ARFF station should be relocated between the two runways. The wooded area on the other side of airport drive could be utilized for more parking/rental cars. I just think that the airport would have better potential if it were updated. Start talking with places like Sporty's Pilot shop, see if they would be interested in opening a store there. I fly in and out of airports all the time, I look to see what amenities they offer. Remember, career pilots live out of these airports, word of mouth travels fast in aviation.
David
the only problem with the airport is the taxiway (not that big of a deal) and the ILS. Everything else is fine from a candidate airline's point of view.
Dave:
Anonymous is obviously someone who works at the airport so he will defend the current status no what suggestions you make.
Don't worry about it, the rest of us are listening. Maybe the Master Plan will address some of the issues that you bring up.
Keep in mind, however, the results of the Master Plan were suppose to be released the summer or maybe the fall of 2006.
Bill
MANCHESTER AIRPORT WENT THROUGH THE SAME GROWING PAINS WORCESTER WAS GOING THROUGH IN THE 90'S.
MANCHESTER GENERAL AVIATION LONG-TIME PILOT'S WERE DEAD SET AGAINST COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS FEARING THEY WOULD BE SQUEEZED OUT OF THEIR AIRPORT. TODAY MANCHESTER HAS A HEALTHY COMBINATION OF COMMERCIAL AND GENERAL AVIATION MIX.
WORCESTER IN THE MEANTIME HAS NOT YET RESOLVED THIS ISSUE CREATING A STAGNATE AIRPORT DRAINING RESOURCES.
"Anonymous said...
Worcester has and can handle more than two jets at one time."
Hahahaha!!! How long ago was that? 1990? There haven't been two airliners there at the same time in over a decade.
Not a single passenger in 2007. Great job, MassPort and ORH management! At least you can always maintain a 100% safety record. Good work fleecing this state and city. Looks like even the tiny airports out in Hampden County think its safe to declare Worcester dead and start up their own show.
Anonymous, again, I'm not trying to bash anyone. I've been flying planes, jets and helo's since 1980, both for the miltary and as an ATP. I have a little experience under my belt with airports and airlines. It's just my opinion. Believe me, as a Central Mass resident, I would love to be able to drive 15-20 minutes to ORH, park my car and go to work. I hate driving to Logan and navigating around that airport and that's just to park my car, I can't imagine being a passenger. I would love to see Worcester succeed and build up to the size of TF Green, I just personally think the facilities are too antiquated for that.
David
Anonymous:
Maybe if people who worked at the airport became more public and helped sell the airport, it would happen versus remaining "anonymous"...
Bill Randell
If everything is fine from a candidate airlines point of view, then where are they???
Quoting David, above: "Why would an airline want to serve an airport when they can handle only about 2 jets at a time?"
It's not even likely that there'd more than two aircraft on station at one time. You're not going to go from zero airlines to multiple, and if one airline was serving ORH, they'd be likely to stagger time on station to keep things running smoothly. Even if there was more than one aircraft there at one time, there are adequate facilities, as pointed out above.
And, don't forget, not all flights are on mainline jets. It's entirely possible that you'd see more Q400s, 1900s and CRJ/ERJs than 737s. You don't use a jetway for those. (Check out the remote terminal at YUL for a good example of how turboprops and RJs get handled.)
I'll second one of the anonymous replies, though: the taxiway and the ILS need some serious attention. The taxiway could/should be extended to the end of 11/29 without much hassle. And better ILS would mean more reliability in marginal weather -- that's a huge deal.
Right now, Rwy 11 is Cat. I, and there's no ILS on 15/33, which is more than long enough to handle turboprops like the 1900. (By the way, 15/33 IS the second runway. And no, a third runway isn't necessary. Likewise, moving the terminal, fire station, etc., isn't a wise move unless there's demand for a bigger terminal.) Upgrading ILS to Cat. II (preferably on both 11/29 and 15/33) would get a lot more bang for the buck.
Bill
There are two camps at the airport
Those that love and enjoy aviation but have seen others get "shunned" and abandoned when they try to stand up . They have families and are afraid because they have to live in this town. They don't like it ,but stand by while others take the heat.
The other faction are the "evil empire Big Red talks about.
Carl Merchant runs into an aircraft with a van and keeps his job. Wow!!
Post a Comment