- A simple question asking how much could we save if we downgraded to General Aviation?(as our consultant IMG advised).
- Why do we always only talk about MassPort? (They are not the only owner or manager of airports.)
Same Time Next Year
-
It’s been nearly a year since I wrote about the problems that come from
having 11 bosses who are not on the same page about anything, as well as
suggestion...
4 months ago
9 comments:
WTAG says Mcgovern is getting us a $15-$20M grant to do runway work.............why dont we use the grant to pay off the debt..........if it can be used for that purporse?
Why bother with upgrades........so a bunch of private pilots can can have a nice runway to land on?????...........while the Worc taxpayers have to pony up $1.5M annually for this private flying club.....which is basically what the airport is now
Jahn:
I am 90% sure that these monies need to be spend on capital improvements. We need to take the money!!
It will, however, increase the amount of money that we would owe if we closed the airport down. Lets be realistic that is not going to happen.
AN analogoy would be this. You want to sell your house and someone is going to give you $20,000 for free to put a new roof and siding on the house. The catch is if you tear the house down you will have to pay the 20,000 back. You would take the free 20,000, put on a new roof/siding and sell the house. Note you better make sure that the new owner is liable for the 20,000 if he tears the house down.
We need to take the monies, do the improvements, downgarde to a GA airport and market the entire airport nationwide.
We have to pay back even more .......if we close it????........Ill bet mcgovern could make that go away ????
How much More?
Jahn:
The highest price we can get for this land is as an airport. We need to fix it up as best we can and cut the annual deficit.
Bill
This the problem with money from Washington....all rational finacial thinking falls by the wayside...........imagime if the city had to come up with $20M in upgrades.....it would actually be great...............b/c then they'd close it and/or cut the $15M deficit immediately.................when Worc probs are solved by thos who are 405 miles away or by those who are 45 miles away.......it can mean trouble down the road for Worcester fiancailly
Union Station....low income housing.......new airport terminal...EPA mandated repairs(others?)......the probs associated with these all have their beginnings with money from outside of Worcester......and in the end I have to pony up for secuirty guards who circle the airport all day keeping the deer and coyotes off the runway that really has no planes using it to speak of anyway
Watched the city council meeting last night.
My take on the "airport" discussions was that there was approx 5 mil each totalling 10 million for runway improvements and something called an arrestor system (?) which apparently the Federal Aviation Administrations mandates.
Councilors Eddy, palmieri, and Clancy I believe asked the question would Worcester have to pay this money back if downgraded (not closed). The answer to if the airport was downright closed was "yes" the money would have to be paid back.
I believe it was Councilor Clancy who attached the items be privilged until info from asst Manager Jacobson could come up with answers at next weeks meeting.
The question was also asked would Worcester be responsible if MassPort took over. The answer was "no" if it is written within terms of sale/lease that MassPort becomes responsible.
Also, I saw that a few councilors put to MassPort their intentions immediately if they are interested in taking title to the airport . If not tell them immediately so the can explore other options.
In any event there will be a repeat of the city council meeting this Saturday on television at 7:00pm--breakout the ol' VCR. Was an interesting discussion from my point of view based on the fact it looks like the council has had enough of dealing with the airport issue. They thought MassPort would have owned it by now.
Finally, next weeks meeting on Tuesday seems like a good one. The budget will be discussed and we might see some answers on the airport sale/lease to MassPort.
I would like to see if any reps from MassPort, airport manager would be in attendance. I also think the managers of all the private businesses should be required to speak. They should be speaking on behalf of the airport to let us the taxpayers know how private aviation is thriving to justify downgrading. 60,000 planes at the airport last year doesn't sound that bad!
my two cents (after inflation)
Private aviation thrives.........if it does it's thriving on my dime.
60,000 planes??.......if you re referring to arrivals & departures...... i think 55,000 of those may be practice touch & goes or paractice landings and practice take-offs by the flying school up there. I think Bill pointed thsi out when this statistic was noted a while back???
The only thing taking off up their is Worc taxpayer money..........and it nevers comes back in for a landing
"Councilors Eddy, palmieri, and Clancy I believe asked the question would Worcester have to pay this money back if downgraded (not closed). The answer to if the airport was downright closed was "yes" the money would have to be paid back."
Worcester neesd to find the same lawyers Chicago used then they bull-dozed an operating airport in the middle of the night.
Folks if Massport walks away from this place...and we take the $20M for upgrades................then what result if we areant willing to sell it to private interests................assuming here that they might even be interested
Post a Comment