"Additionally, IMG is preparing route analysis for two prospective airlines. City staff are working closely with MassPort officials to review and make additional recommendations on these packages. Following the finalization of the packages, MassPort and the City will meet with representatives of the targeted airliness to determine interest in locating at the airport."
Tonight here is the IMG update from City Council minutes:
"IMG will continue to provide the City with analysis of potential carriers and the creation of specific marketing packages and strategies for those identified airlines. The City and Massport are focusing efforts on identifying and recruiting airlines that employ more efficient aircraft and service popular destinations which were identified through the locan and FAA-conducted surveys of passengers preferences."
- Were the two packages finished?
- Were the two airlines met with?
- What did they say?
9 comments:
Why isn't the Airport Commission mtg time and date posted under public meetings on the city's web site, along with agenda items and minutes? This has been a pending question for a long time now. Who can give us an answer? Is someone pursuing this through other channels and is there a breach in any way of the Open Meeting Law?
Taking a snipet of text from the Municipal website....
Meetings:
Generally meet at 6:15 P.M. on the second Monday of every month.
OK, that's when they generally meet. Agenda items? Minutes?
Airport Commission Agendas/Minutes
Minutes are on www.flyworcester.com
The minutes are on the website but it takes well over a month to be posted. The January minutes are not posted until the February meeting approves them and it still takes a week thereafter. There is no reason why the January minutes could not be posted and labeled as "draft".
The agenda, which should be posted, is not. What difference does it make anyhow since there is never anything of substance in the minutes like progress of IMG or negotiations with MassPort. Obviously the members conduct all business outside the confines of the actual board meetings when a quorum is not present.
Bill, that is exactly the point. The difference it makes is that if we can produce a lengthy paper trail of a blatant absence of substance from the agenda without a clear reason (sensitive info, by company request, executive session), then we have an argument that should be heard and rectified. I know other people read this blog and may have a problem with someone squawking about this, but if we don't care about this issue now, why, when Massport assumes ownership and control later this year, would anything change for the better?
1. Were the two pachakges finished? Probably.
2. Were the two airlines met with? Yes, If you consider a telephone call rises to the level of a meeting.
3. What did they (airlines) say? Dont call us, we'll call you.
Initially "IMG is preparing route analysis with two prospective airlines." Commercial air service I asssume?
Fast forward one month: IMG...."analysis of potential carriers..........identifying and recruiting.......airlines employing more efficient aircraft"
Translation: Our route analysis failed to attract any major providers of commercial air service and because we cannot attract larger carriers with larger planes we are now targeting smaller carriers with smaller planes.
Any carriers with any planes will do at this point but IMO we need more and Massport leasing ORH will change this situation exactly how?
Wait until Patrick gets his hands Massport. More unqualified hacks.
Privatize ORH. We'll need the additional property tax revenue to fund the upcoming union contracts.
Tom & Jahn:
Good points both of you. I have an idea maybe we can call the Telegram and ask them to run another one of their Editorials on the importance of the Open Meeting Laws.
For kicks, go to the January, 2005 Board Minutes, when the Minutes were not on-line. 9 pages full of information.
Now that they are readily available take a look at the December, 2006 Board Minutes. Notice a difference???
Post a Comment