I had a great conversation today with the owner of Lake Arrowhead Airport in the desert Mountains north of Los Angelos, California. They are interested in the Aeroblue Aviation Foundation approach to do fundraising for the public-type assets for their (currently) private airport. These improvements will enable them to meet FAA requirements for "Public-Use" - and remove that pesky "R" from the LA sectional over their strip. Essentially this will create a NEW airport available to the public 24/7/365.
Currently, the airport is open 'with prior permission' which is freely granted. It is frequently used by public agencies for Search and Rescue, Forest Fire suppression, and is a key element in disaster response such as earthquakes. It also provides great access to the LA basin to the resort area of Lake Arrowhead. The improvements will allow them to operate at night, and establish instrument approaches which are planned.
While any local, county or state government would pay tens of millions to create a new airport, this facility only needs $2.5 Million to install a Unicom, Runway lighting, and pave the existing runway and taxi surfaces.
This is a great deal for taxpayers. But why would the FAA or State of California not provide funding? Mostly because they are private. The FAA has a strong bias against private ownership of airports. And because the FAA would like 500 acres clear of any obstacles except the ones they put there. This airport is in a desert mountain location, and the FAA would require them to cut the few trees that exist on the property.
We are thrilled to be working with the airport to meet these goals.
Their immediate need is a Unicom Base Station (new or used) that will meet the FAA certification requirements. If anyone could donate a used system or help with the $2000 for a basic system, this would be a great start to a great project.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Solberg Airport wins Appeal of Eminent Domain
The Eminent Domain of Solberg Airport has been postponed and a trial ordered. The local town of Readington is using Eminent Domain to destroy the private airport to prevent expansion and improvements approved by the FAA and NJDOT. Recent growth in the area, including the "Global Headquarters" of Merck Pharmaceuticals and Chubb Insurance company have put increased demand on the airport. The local town makes the very conflicted arguement that expansion will greatly increase traffic, but there is no demand to justify the expansion.
The town, county and congressional district are all republican. Yet it appears these republicans no longer support private enterprise nor private property rights. While the local government approved the airport over 70 years ago, it was never included in local land use planning, resulting in homes and schools built unreasonably close to active runways. Town officials reportedly told potential residents that the airport would never expand. This appears to have deceived residents into home buying decisions they may not have made. Recently a school was built at the end of a runway with full knowledge of the airport, including a warning from the NJDOT of the proximity to the airport. Rememer that the airport has no control over local land use decisions.
Yet, this airport is located in one of the greatest concentrations of economic activtity on the planet, in an area with decades of air traffic delays due to congestion and inadquate airports.
It is unreasonable to consider "moving" the airport. The airport is significantly dependent upon geography. It lies midway between Newark and Allentown airports as well as midway between Morristown and Trenton airports. In addition, moving the airport would simply shift the noise impact into a new area.
In the Eminent Domain brief by the town, they argue that they should have exclusive control over the growth of the airport, by pointing out that 6 other airports in other towns should accept the proposed growth. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Secondly, this is utter nonsense; it is physically impossible since none of these airports have adquate land (Solberg is over 700 acres where the other six average 100 acres), nor do they have a crosswind runway, nor do they have a VOR for navigation, and none are located where Solberg is located!
The town argued that condemnation of the airport was necessary to meet "Open Space" goals, Yet the town has already preserved vast amounts of the town (nearly 30%).
Indeed the 3 judge panel concluded that the government in Readington was deceptive (i.e. They Lied?) about their true intentions or motivations. They are less interested in preserving open space than they are about preventing airport expansion.
We expect any jury of reasonable people will agree.
The towns lawsuit demanded that Solberg Airport pay taxes on the land taken by the Eminent Domain action! This seems to confirm that part of their strategy is to bankrupt the airport through frivolous litigation.
This fight is not over. Now the airport will have to defend itself in a trial.
This sad story confirms the position that airports should have better legal protection against unreasonable litigation, that airports representing Interstate Commerce, should have some due process by which to make reasonable improvements and meet current FAA regulations and public safety standards.
The town, county and congressional district are all republican. Yet it appears these republicans no longer support private enterprise nor private property rights. While the local government approved the airport over 70 years ago, it was never included in local land use planning, resulting in homes and schools built unreasonably close to active runways. Town officials reportedly told potential residents that the airport would never expand. This appears to have deceived residents into home buying decisions they may not have made. Recently a school was built at the end of a runway with full knowledge of the airport, including a warning from the NJDOT of the proximity to the airport. Rememer that the airport has no control over local land use decisions.
Yet, this airport is located in one of the greatest concentrations of economic activtity on the planet, in an area with decades of air traffic delays due to congestion and inadquate airports.
It is unreasonable to consider "moving" the airport. The airport is significantly dependent upon geography. It lies midway between Newark and Allentown airports as well as midway between Morristown and Trenton airports. In addition, moving the airport would simply shift the noise impact into a new area.
In the Eminent Domain brief by the town, they argue that they should have exclusive control over the growth of the airport, by pointing out that 6 other airports in other towns should accept the proposed growth. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Secondly, this is utter nonsense; it is physically impossible since none of these airports have adquate land (Solberg is over 700 acres where the other six average 100 acres), nor do they have a crosswind runway, nor do they have a VOR for navigation, and none are located where Solberg is located!
The town argued that condemnation of the airport was necessary to meet "Open Space" goals, Yet the town has already preserved vast amounts of the town (nearly 30%).
Indeed the 3 judge panel concluded that the government in Readington was deceptive (i.e. They Lied?) about their true intentions or motivations. They are less interested in preserving open space than they are about preventing airport expansion.
We expect any jury of reasonable people will agree.
The towns lawsuit demanded that Solberg Airport pay taxes on the land taken by the Eminent Domain action! This seems to confirm that part of their strategy is to bankrupt the airport through frivolous litigation.
This fight is not over. Now the airport will have to defend itself in a trial.
This sad story confirms the position that airports should have better legal protection against unreasonable litigation, that airports representing Interstate Commerce, should have some due process by which to make reasonable improvements and meet current FAA regulations and public safety standards.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
New website format
Welcome to the AeroBlue Blog. We've revamped our website to a much smaller foot print where we can focus on our ideas and more rapid updates. So we've chosen a blog format so popular these days.
We look forward to this new model to deliver a much better grassroots format and increased dialog.
We'll be adding more links to our favorite sites and news.
Thanks!
Happy Landings!
We look forward to this new model to deliver a much better grassroots format and increased dialog.
We'll be adding more links to our favorite sites and news.
Thanks!
Happy Landings!
Friday, January 11, 2008
NJ SASP
The Glorious and Inept State of New Jersey delivered their first State Airport System Plan in something like 20 years.
It is a model of photography that would make any high school proud!
However, it wallows in fluff with a few useful facts. Like this one:
77% of airports lack adequate safety areas.
46 % of airports lack adequate Runway-Taxiway separation.
35% of airports lack adequate Runway Width.
Newark, Teterboro, and Morristown are over 80% of capacity. Newark? isn't this more like 120% capacity?
Then there is a little snide remarks like this: "Of the 28 privately
owned, public use airports, seven are eligible to receive
federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding; five
of these seven are currently obligated. NJDOT supports
and advocates public ownership and operation of Core
airports as appropriate."
"Upgrading all airports to meet 100 percent of their identified objectives will entail significant investment over the coming years. Funding priority should be given to those airports and projects considered most essential to the success of the State’s airport system."
"New airports would help to resolve potential operational capacity shortfalls."
"The following airports should be developed to the maximum extent feasible based on local development, financial, environmental, ownership, and community considerations:"
This in a state that is rapidly approaching BANKRUPTCY.
Why should the state make the huge investment to purchase PRIVATE airports to PUBLIC OWNERSHIP?
The state has NEVER, NEVER created a "new airport". Nearly all of the airports in New Jersey started as PRIVATE airports.
Instead, the state should encourage private ownership and investment, and instead, put any available funding into safety and capacity improvements.
The contradictions in NJDOT are ASSSSSSTOUNDING. We need to pawn off the Parkway, Turnpike, and the AC Expressway for 75 years to raise $40 Billion in new Debt, but we then need to spend an additional $350 Million to buy airports that are already airports?
Clearly, this system is broken. "Privately-owned Public-Use" airports should have the legal standing and opportunity to play exactly the same role as public airports. In fact, the FAA, State, County, and MPO's have significant discriminatory practices AGAINST privately owned public use airports.
Even more interesting is that NJDOT has flip-flopped on airport improvements because they never released this report. Therefore, they could (and continuously did) flip their position on airport improvements in order to manipulate the price they paid to purchase airports. First they would give the airport a certain role. The airport would begin planning to meet this role. The town would object and begin Eminent Domain proceedings to "take" the airport. NJDOT would clam up, and hide the FEDERALLY FUNDED Environmental Impact Statement that would validate safety issues. Then the town would use the lack of this data to incriminate the airport.
Its very slimy and very insidious. And TOTALLY unconstitutional. NJDOT creates a conflict of interest by both REGULATING and OWNING airports. This makes them a MARKET PLAYER as well as MARKET REGULATOR.
It is a model of photography that would make any high school proud!
However, it wallows in fluff with a few useful facts. Like this one:
77% of airports lack adequate safety areas.
46 % of airports lack adequate Runway-Taxiway separation.
35% of airports lack adequate Runway Width.
Newark, Teterboro, and Morristown are over 80% of capacity. Newark? isn't this more like 120% capacity?
Then there is a little snide remarks like this: "Of the 28 privately
owned, public use airports, seven are eligible to receive
federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding; five
of these seven are currently obligated. NJDOT supports
and advocates public ownership and operation of Core
airports as appropriate."
"Upgrading all airports to meet 100 percent of their identified objectives will entail significant investment over the coming years. Funding priority should be given to those airports and projects considered most essential to the success of the State’s airport system."
"New airports would help to resolve potential operational capacity shortfalls."
"The following airports should be developed to the maximum extent feasible based on local development, financial, environmental, ownership, and community considerations:"
This in a state that is rapidly approaching BANKRUPTCY.
Why should the state make the huge investment to purchase PRIVATE airports to PUBLIC OWNERSHIP?
The state has NEVER, NEVER created a "new airport". Nearly all of the airports in New Jersey started as PRIVATE airports.
Instead, the state should encourage private ownership and investment, and instead, put any available funding into safety and capacity improvements.
The contradictions in NJDOT are ASSSSSSTOUNDING. We need to pawn off the Parkway, Turnpike, and the AC Expressway for 75 years to raise $40 Billion in new Debt, but we then need to spend an additional $350 Million to buy airports that are already airports?
Clearly, this system is broken. "Privately-owned Public-Use" airports should have the legal standing and opportunity to play exactly the same role as public airports. In fact, the FAA, State, County, and MPO's have significant discriminatory practices AGAINST privately owned public use airports.
Even more interesting is that NJDOT has flip-flopped on airport improvements because they never released this report. Therefore, they could (and continuously did) flip their position on airport improvements in order to manipulate the price they paid to purchase airports. First they would give the airport a certain role. The airport would begin planning to meet this role. The town would object and begin Eminent Domain proceedings to "take" the airport. NJDOT would clam up, and hide the FEDERALLY FUNDED Environmental Impact Statement that would validate safety issues. Then the town would use the lack of this data to incriminate the airport.
Its very slimy and very insidious. And TOTALLY unconstitutional. NJDOT creates a conflict of interest by both REGULATING and OWNING airports. This makes them a MARKET PLAYER as well as MARKET REGULATOR.
State Role in Transportation
Who is responsible for a Safe and Efficient transportation system?
This is an important question.
In the current showdown over Sikorsky Airport, the state of Connecticut wants to ensure that Sikorsky Airport is safe and can meet the transportation needs of the state. The airport, however, is owned by the city of Bridgeport. In order to make the improvements, the state is making the necessary motions to purchase the airport from Bridgeport. The town cries that this "does an end-run around home rule." Home rule is a fine policy when dealing with things that all towns have to deal with, but airports are a regional issue, and elements in a national transportation system. Home Rule control of airports violates the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.
Interstate Commerce:
The town politicians have very little responsibility for transportation. They have no interest in state or national transportation planning. In fact, the town or city has significant responsibility for compatible land uses around airports, and they don't even do that well.
In the effort to make Aviation safer and more efficient, airports and runways need to be safer. These decisions should not be compromised by hand-wringing, favoritism, and the political ambitions of the local mayor or dog-catcher.
In comparison, cities have very little control over other transportation. Congress understands that if a railway had to negotiate and compromise with every local town, it would be impossible to have a national standard of safety or a cost-effective system.
First the Mayor argues that the State purchase would hurt the "economic and tax income" to the town, but it is obvious the town has prevented improvements to the airport that serves over 270 based aircraft.
"Sen. Bill Finch, D-Bridgeport, one of the sponsors of the measure to sell the airport to the state, insisted that it has been "Stratford's policy to limit development at the airport.""
I find it very hard to understand the Republicans who normally favor business interests but don't support the economic value of airports or public safety. In many towns Republicans are voted out of office for opposing airport use and improvement, sometimes replaced by Democrats!
This is an important question.
In the current showdown over Sikorsky Airport, the state of Connecticut wants to ensure that Sikorsky Airport is safe and can meet the transportation needs of the state. The airport, however, is owned by the city of Bridgeport. In order to make the improvements, the state is making the necessary motions to purchase the airport from Bridgeport. The town cries that this "does an end-run around home rule." Home rule is a fine policy when dealing with things that all towns have to deal with, but airports are a regional issue, and elements in a national transportation system. Home Rule control of airports violates the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.
Interstate Commerce:
The town politicians have very little responsibility for transportation. They have no interest in state or national transportation planning. In fact, the town or city has significant responsibility for compatible land uses around airports, and they don't even do that well.
In the effort to make Aviation safer and more efficient, airports and runways need to be safer. These decisions should not be compromised by hand-wringing, favoritism, and the political ambitions of the local mayor or dog-catcher.
In comparison, cities have very little control over other transportation. Congress understands that if a railway had to negotiate and compromise with every local town, it would be impossible to have a national standard of safety or a cost-effective system.
First the Mayor argues that the State purchase would hurt the "economic and tax income" to the town, but it is obvious the town has prevented improvements to the airport that serves over 270 based aircraft.
"Sen. Bill Finch, D-Bridgeport, one of the sponsors of the measure to sell the airport to the state, insisted that it has been "Stratford's policy to limit development at the airport.""
I find it very hard to understand the Republicans who normally favor business interests but don't support the economic value of airports or public safety. In many towns Republicans are voted out of office for opposing airport use and improvement, sometimes replaced by Democrats!
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Privatizing Midway
There is progress being made to privatize Midway Airport. This is exactly what we have been discussing at AeroBlue.Org. There is a market for private owners and operators of airports, as well as government bodies and agencies that would like to leave airports to private enterprise.
The challange here is that Congress and the FAA will have to play "catch-up."
For instance, the FAA has strong policies that DISCRIMINATE against private owners. Midway Airport will no longer be a "Commercial Airport" because the FAA mandates that even privately owned airports that receive commercial air service still cannot be called commercial airports!
Huh?
Thats correct. Here it is on page 18 of 5090.3c
"(2) Privately owned public-use airports that enplane 2,500 or more passengers
annually and receive scheduled passenger service are also classified as general aviation
because they do not meet the criteria for commercial service (i.e., are not publicly owned)."
Its not clear why the FAA hates private airports when the airline industry thrives on competition? Rumor has it that the Airlines used this as a way to push the cost of the airport onto taxpayers. In many places, this has backfired, as now politicians are diverting funds and airport land to pet projects such as the $250Million the NJNY Port Authority paid that funded the Newark Hockey Arena.
Also, There are serious concerns from the users of the airport, the airlines and private aviation, that there is no regulation of prices. Since airports and other utilities are considered a "natural monopoly" there must be some regulation to avoid pricing gouging, discrimination and other unfair practices. Congress has addressed this with other modes of transportation by establishing regulation through the Surface Transportation Board (Formerly the Interstate Commerce Commission. )
The challange here is that Congress and the FAA will have to play "catch-up."
For instance, the FAA has strong policies that DISCRIMINATE against private owners. Midway Airport will no longer be a "Commercial Airport" because the FAA mandates that even privately owned airports that receive commercial air service still cannot be called commercial airports!
Huh?
Thats correct. Here it is on page 18 of 5090.3c
"(2) Privately owned public-use airports that enplane 2,500 or more passengers
annually and receive scheduled passenger service are also classified as general aviation
because they do not meet the criteria for commercial service (i.e., are not publicly owned)."
Its not clear why the FAA hates private airports when the airline industry thrives on competition? Rumor has it that the Airlines used this as a way to push the cost of the airport onto taxpayers. In many places, this has backfired, as now politicians are diverting funds and airport land to pet projects such as the $250Million the NJNY Port Authority paid that funded the Newark Hockey Arena.
Also, There are serious concerns from the users of the airport, the airlines and private aviation, that there is no regulation of prices. Since airports and other utilities are considered a "natural monopoly" there must be some regulation to avoid pricing gouging, discrimination and other unfair practices. Congress has addressed this with other modes of transportation by establishing regulation through the Surface Transportation Board (Formerly the Interstate Commerce Commission. )
Thursday, October 25, 2007
What is Airport Interstate Commmerce?
AeroBlue.Org is dedicated to improving the contributions of our airport system to our economy and quality of life. As part of this undertaking, we have researched the system of state and federal laws and regulations that our airports operate under.
We have found some startling problems.
The US Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate Interestate and International Commerce. Thus, Congress has established a regulatory process for modes of transportation such as waterways, railways, powerlines, pipelines, communications, highways, bicycles, building design, and pedestrians. But not airports. Nope. Congress does NOT consider or 'protect' airports as "Interstate Commerce". Congress has taken complete regulatory control of the US Airspace as "Interstate Commerce", or "Interstate Air Commerce", but federal protection of your flight ends at the surface of the runway.
There are several examples, which we'll get into later. Scary examples. Stupid examples. Its all there.
As a result, the Congress, the FAA, and the states have established a bandaid patchwork of regulations and laws that have tremendous gaps. These gaps hurt our economy, and hurt the quality of life in our communities. These laws make it nearly impossible for private enterprise to own and operate an airport, unlike nearly all other transportation. Nearly all railways, pipelines, powerlines, and marine terminals are privately owned.
AeroBlue.Org will discuss our proposals to fix these gaps, relevent news, and updates on our progress and conversations with the leadership of our country.
AeroBlue.Org will work with state, local and national organizations to develop solutions to these issues and facilitate discussions with community members, and finally with the legislators that make these laws.
AeroBlue.Org wants input from the public. The laws of our great country belong to everyone, and we'll work diligently to gather your input, listen to all sides of the issues, and find solutions that make the best possible fit. We've been told by people and politicians of long experience that some people are not reasonable, and will be upset at any proposal regardless of its value. All that can be asked is "make a suggestion", "give us an alternative idea" that might improve the concept.
In our travels around the world, we have found America is the greatest country in the world because of our Constitution, our government structure, and our free economy. Unreasonable restrictions on airports and poor community planning hurt our country. There is always room for improvement.
God Bless America.
We have found some startling problems.
The US Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate Interestate and International Commerce. Thus, Congress has established a regulatory process for modes of transportation such as waterways, railways, powerlines, pipelines, communications, highways, bicycles, building design, and pedestrians. But not airports. Nope. Congress does NOT consider or 'protect' airports as "Interstate Commerce". Congress has taken complete regulatory control of the US Airspace as "Interstate Commerce", or "Interstate Air Commerce", but federal protection of your flight ends at the surface of the runway.
There are several examples, which we'll get into later. Scary examples. Stupid examples. Its all there.
As a result, the Congress, the FAA, and the states have established a bandaid patchwork of regulations and laws that have tremendous gaps. These gaps hurt our economy, and hurt the quality of life in our communities. These laws make it nearly impossible for private enterprise to own and operate an airport, unlike nearly all other transportation. Nearly all railways, pipelines, powerlines, and marine terminals are privately owned.
AeroBlue.Org will discuss our proposals to fix these gaps, relevent news, and updates on our progress and conversations with the leadership of our country.
AeroBlue.Org will work with state, local and national organizations to develop solutions to these issues and facilitate discussions with community members, and finally with the legislators that make these laws.
AeroBlue.Org wants input from the public. The laws of our great country belong to everyone, and we'll work diligently to gather your input, listen to all sides of the issues, and find solutions that make the best possible fit. We've been told by people and politicians of long experience that some people are not reasonable, and will be upset at any proposal regardless of its value. All that can be asked is "make a suggestion", "give us an alternative idea" that might improve the concept.
In our travels around the world, we have found America is the greatest country in the world because of our Constitution, our government structure, and our free economy. Unreasonable restrictions on airports and poor community planning hurt our country. There is always room for improvement.
God Bless America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
