what airports lie about delays to get more expansion?

I think this is a great question (re: fibbing, or rather flat-out lying). I am sure many airports 'enhance' operations numbers between breaths while sucking the FAA funding teet. The real question should be why are cities endlessly agreeing to tax abatement packages to appease these big companies. These big companies are the LAST entities for which tax abatement packages should be given! $28 million in tax abatements to create a few hundred part-time (re: no healthcare) jobs that pay a whopping $13-$16/hour (re: scraping a living wage)? You've got to be kidding...
 
Getonit said:
My take on the original posters question is at smaller airports where there is no one counting traffic. Let's take FCI for example, they show 169 operations per day that is 7 per hour over 24 hours, let's take a realistic approach that at night time 10 pm to 6 am, flying drops off even farther, so divide the 169 by 16 hours works out to 10 operations per hour, which is one every 6 minutes.....I have sat out there on beautiful no wind clear and a million, perfect temperature days on a weekend and didn't see an airplane take off and depart for 45 minutes. That means that it is even busier on other times.....IF you believe the original statistic of 169 which I believe is grossly inflated. This same airport is in the midst of an expansion to add 500 to 1000 feet at a cost of $15 million? Ridiculous amount of money to attract what? I am thinking all of the modern biz jets don't need that length or if they do go over to RIC. Simple cost/benefit analysis. They won't every get enough G6's in there to justify the cost. Never, ever, never. But hey the FAA(federal government) is paying for 90% of it, why the hell not? Reason we are $20 trillion in debt, spending money stupidly on projects that have no return. So YES they lie.
Click to expand...
The 169 ops per day comes from the airport reporting 61,780 operations a year, or just under 32,000 flights because landings and takeoffs are counted separately. Take out the military and air taxi, which are somewhat more known quantities, and you get about 60,000 operations -- 30,000 flights -- a year. That number is reported by the airport, and and yes, there is a motivation for the airport to over-report numbers. But it's not like the airport reports a number and that's just good to go. There is a little bit of analysis that goes into validating those numbers. The estimate is compared to air traffic numbers reported in the system, fuel flowage, etc. FAA uses those numbers to create a Terminal Area Forecast (not at all the same thing as what a pilot thinks of as a TAF), which is what funding justification is based on. For FCI, the TAF is flat through the 30-year planning horizon. So FAA is not expecting any increase in traffic through 2045.

As for the expansion to add 500 to 1000 feet, there may be some justification for it that is not readily apparent. I know of one runway extension in the works because an aerial tanker based there currently takes off almost empty and goes to a different airport to fill up. The other issue is that many large urban airports that have capacity constraints are in the process of trying to price GA out and push them to smaller regional airports.

By no means am I saying the operations numbers for GA airports are reliable -- they are not. But at the same time, they are not simple fantasy either.
 
Bradley W said:
Is IND lying for the FedEX expansion?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by the "FedEx expansion." FedEx is spending it's own money (but seeking tax relief) to upgrade its own equipment. Nothing at all here about expanding the airport facilities. http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/story/36990475/fedex-again-plans-central-indiana-investment

They have a huge sort facility at KIND with lots of conveyors and motors to sort packages. It can cover Memphis if that facility goes down. Or at least it used to be able to several years ago. I suspect the quantity of parcels shipped may have increased beyond KIND's capacity. They may be upgrading KIND so that it can continue to be sufficiently redundant for Memphis in a pinch.
 
Ken Ibold said:
The 169 ops per day comes from the airport reporting 61,780 operations a year, or just under 32,000 flights because landings and takeoffs are counted separately. Take out the military and air taxi, which are somewhat more known quantities, and you get about 60,000 operations -- 30,000 flights -- a year. That number is reported by the airport, and and yes, there is a motivation for the airport to over-report numbers. But it's not like the airport reports a number and that's just good to go. There is a little bit of analysis that goes into validating those numbers. The estimate is compared to air traffic numbers reported in the system, fuel flowage, etc. FAA uses those numbers to create a Terminal Area Forecast (not at all the same thing as what a pilot thinks of as a TAF), which is what funding justification is based on. For FCI, the TAF is flat through the 30-year planning horizon. So FAA is not expecting any increase in traffic through 2045.

As for the expansion to add 500 to 1000 feet, there may be some justification for it that is not readily apparent. I know of one runway extension in the works because an aerial tanker based there currently takes off almost empty and goes to a different airport to fill up. The other issue is that many large urban airports that have capacity constraints are in the process of trying to price GA out and push them to smaller regional airports.

By no means am I saying the operations numbers for GA airports are reliable -- they are not. But at the same time, they are not simple fantasy either.
Click to expand...

I think you are proving my point that they are fantasy. I don't see anywhere near the numbers that they are claiming. FCI has a nearly empty ramp for tiedown that was built in last 5-10 years. The runway expansion is being sold to bring in more jet aircraft not support anybody who needs it NOW. What is the payback on a $15 million dollar expansion? That is a lot of jet fuel and property tax to be collected. Especially when a major airport is less than 20 minutes away by driving. Our country is going bankrupt building these things that nobody uses, which I read into the OP mind.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Are you just trolling or dumb? They absolutely need 5 runways, and the proposed 6th would help out as well...
Click to expand...

Fish_tricks.gif
 
Getonit said:
I think you are proving my point that they are fantasy. I don't see anywhere near the numbers that they are claiming. FCI has a nearly empty ramp for tiedown that was built in last 5-10 years. The runway expansion is being sold to bring in more jet aircraft not support anybody who needs it NOW. What is the payback on a $15 million dollar expansion? That is a lot of jet fuel and property tax to be collected. Especially when a major airport is less than 20 minutes away by driving. Our country is going bankrupt building these things that nobody uses, which I read into the OP mind.
Click to expand...
What I don’t understand is why 15million? I helped manage a runway improvement project that paved a 60x3500 gravel runway. Total cost under 400k. Why is this short expansion costing almost 40 times more money??
 
@Bradley W -- Did you mean "which airports?"

The replies you've gotten talk about inflating operations per day, which has no direct correlation to delays.

Further, what do you have for an measure of "delays"?

Thing is, the consumer considers delays a negative. The airline's incentive is to lie with lower numbers. Who's BS statistic is better? Many consumers can change airlines but changing airports isn't so easy in most markets.

Where were you headed with your query?
 
Ravioli said:
@Bradley W -- Did you mean "which airports?"

The replies you've gotten talk about inflating operations per day, which has no direct correlation to delays.

Further, what do you have for an measure of "delays"?

Thing is, the consumer considers delays a negative. The airline's incentive is to lie with lower numbers. Who's BS statistic is better? Many consumers can change airlines but changing airports isn't so easy in most markets.

Where were you headed with your query?
Click to expand...

do not feed the trolls.png
 
Tarheelpilot said:
What I don’t understand is why 15million? I helped manage a runway improvement project that paved a 60x3500 gravel runway. Total cost under 400k. Why is this short expansion costing almost 40 times more money??
Click to expand...

Don't ask my, I am just a dumb taxpayer....
I was off by $5 million, my bad, but I could have sworn I saw the $15 million number.....I have also seen a number as high as $27 million......
for 800 feet. Someone do the cost benefit for me on that one.


"The price for the runway extension will be approximately $9.6 million. That includes design and construction costs, as well as land acquisition and wetland mitigation."

https://richmondbizsense.com/2012/11/20/airport-faces-800-foot-hurdle/
 
Getonit said:
Don't ask my, I am just a dumb taxpayer....
I was off by $5 million, my bad, but I could have sworn I saw the $15 million number.....I have also seen a number as high as $27 million......
for 800 feet. Someone do the cost benefit for me on that one.


"The price for the runway extension will be approximately $9.6 million. That includes design and construction costs, as well as land acquisition and wetland mitigation."

https://richmondbizsense.com/2012/11/20/airport-faces-800-foot-hurdle/
Click to expand...

I am willing to bet a lot of the price is the cost of the land.

Tim
 
Getonit said:
"The price for the runway extension will be approximately $9.6 million. That includes design and construction costs, as well as land acquisition and wetland mitigation."

https://richmondbizsense.com/2012/11/20/airport-faces-800-foot-hurdle/
Click to expand...
Price depends on a lot of variables. Considerations include width, pavement thickness, site prep, local costs, how aggressive the schedule is, asphalt vs concrete, associated relocation of lights and signs, whether there's a parallel taxiway associated with it, moving localizer/glideslope/PAPI, and in this case land acquisition and wetland mitigation. Without knowing any of those details, $9.6 million could be a ripoff or a bargain.
 
Ken I stalked you and found your background is "aviation consulting". If you think a million dollars per 100 feet of runway is acceptable you are a reason a lot of these gold plated social programs exist. Absolutely zero concern for the taxpayers dollar backed up by volumes and volumes of reports based on guesses and estimates. I could go on and on on the waste I see in aviation development. A terminal building in West Point VA that cost almost $400/square foot, or putting in a LDA when you have two GPS approaches with lower minimums, etc.
 
Getonit said:
Ken I stalked you and found your background is "aviation consulting". If you think a million dollars per 100 feet of runway is acceptable you are a reason a lot of these gold plated social programs exist. Absolutely zero concern for the taxpayers dollar backed up by volumes and volumes of reports based on guesses and estimates. I could go on and on on the waste I see in aviation development. A terminal building in West Point VA that cost almost $400/square foot, or putting in a LDA when you have two GPS approaches with lower minimums, etc.
Click to expand...
I'm neither saying it's acceptable nor unacceptable, just offering an opinion of the validity of what it costs to do the work. Public spending of any kind is an investment in the quality of life of the people it serves. Runway or library or city hall building or sports stadium or health care plan or free college tuition, it doesn't matter. What is a worthwhile investment to you may be a waste to your neighbor, and vice versa. The priorities of the community are supposedly reflected in the people who win the elections and decide what to spend public dollars on.
 
Getonit said:
Ken I stalked you and found your background is "aviation consulting". If you think a million dollars per 100 feet of runway is acceptable you are a reason a lot of these gold plated social programs exist. Absolutely zero concern for the taxpayers dollar backed up by volumes and volumes of reports based on guesses and estimates. I could go on and on on the waste I see in aviation development. A terminal building in West Point VA that cost almost $400/square foot, or putting in a LDA when you have two GPS approaches with lower minimums, etc.
Click to expand...

You know that the plans underlying this cost estimate are public? Why don't you get yourself a copy of the bid specs before you continue foaming at the mouth about it.
 
I did the legwork for you. The 800ft of pavement is budgeted at $400,000.

There are lots of other projects in the 15mil budget for phase I of the airport master plan including rehabilitation of the existing parking lots at 1.8mil and 5mil worth of new hangar construction. The other big ticket items for this overall airport expansion are land acquisition 2.7mil and wetland mitigation at 2.3mil.
 
weilke said:
I did the legwork for you. The 800ft of pavement is budgeted at $400,000.

There are lots of other projects in the 15mil budget for phase I of the airport master plan including rehabilitation of the existing parking lots at 1.8mil and 5mil worth of new hangar construction. The other big ticket items for this overall airport expansion are land acquisition 2.7mil and wetland mitigation at 2.3mil.
Click to expand...

Well this is the reason I rarely engage in "discussing" anything on the internet, people like you and here is why. I did read the report on the FCI expansion plans, perhaps you should read further down where they quote a price of $3.1 million for the runway expansion alone. Whether it is $400K or $3.1K for the runway the whole cost of runway expansion is expected to be $10 million for an additional 800 feet, doesn't matter if it is only $10 for concrete and the balance is for the rest of project, it still cost $10 million. READ what I said. I take objection to taxpayer money being spent this poorly with no benefit to the taxpayers. Your profile says you are in HEF, my guess is you are an overpaid government worker or contractor who has time to post on social media forums an average of 4 times a day, go get a life, you are just a keyboard warrior. Your foaming at the mouth comment ****ed me off.
 
Yah man, your foaming at the mouth comment has him... wait for it... foaming at the mouth. <-- sometimes it's too easy.
 
Getonit said:
Well this is the reason I rarely engage in "discussing" anything on the internet, people like you and here is why. I did read the report on the FCI expansion plans, perhaps you should read further down where they quote a price of $3.1 million for the runway expansion alone. Whether it is $400K or $3.1K for the runway the whole cost of runway expansion is expected to be $10 million for an additional 800 feet, doesn't matter if it is only $10 for concrete and the balance is for the rest of project, it still cost $10 million. READ what I said. I take objection to taxpayer money being spent this poorly with no benefit to the taxpayers. Your profile says you are in HEF, my guess is you are an overpaid government worker or contractor who has time to post on social media forums an average of 4 times a day, go get a life, you are just a keyboard warrior. Your foaming at the mouth comment ****ed me off.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you started the reaction by implying Ken was biased, overpaid and trying to justify his overpaid salary. Then someone else comes along and provides the actual info and you are still blaming Ken?
At the end of the day, the problem really is those who complain and do not actually participate in government. Complaining to an online forum, will not likely make any changes, the old adage "the squeaky wheel gets greased" applies. Show up at city/county meetings, ask questions. Participate at the state level, be involved.

Tim
 
Wait a minute: I thought I was responsible for runaway government spending because I'm on Social Security and Medicare!
 
By the way, does anyone know what percentage of airport improvement grants is paid for by aviation taxes?
 
Palmpilot said:
By the way, does anyone know what percentage of airport improvement grants is paid for by aviation taxes?
Click to expand...
AIP grants pay for 80 or 90% of the cost of eligible projects, depending on the airport. Typically state and local shares pay the rest. Many projects are not eligible and are paid by state and local funds, or by bonds. Some states are block grant states and administer the funding differently. Then, there are discretionary grants and entitlement grants. It's the feds, so it can't be straightforward.

No airport projects get federal funding outside of the aviation trust fund, unless you consider the impact of the taxes not collected on the bonds.

This is the case for NPIAS airports. Non NPIAS airports do not get trust fund money.
 
I'd like to believe the check I just sent out today for personal property tax goes back into the airport but I fear it doesn't.
 
Velocity173 said:
I'd like to believe the check I just sent out today for personal property tax goes back into the airport but I fear it doesn't.
Click to expand...

It mostly goes to cover the bill for services which used to be paid by the state. Now that @Palmpilot and his generation have crowded out most of the funding for services with payments for Social Security and Medicare.

Tim (could not resist, after PalmPilot set it up)
 
Getonit said:
Well this is the reason I rarely engage in "discussing" anything on the internet, people like you and here is why. I did read the report on the FCI expansion plans, perhaps you should read further down where they quote a price of $3.1 million for the runway expansion alone. Whether it is $400K or $3.1K for the runway the whole cost of runway expansion is expected to be $10 million for an additional 800 feet, doesn't matter if it is only $10 for concrete and the balance is for the rest of project, it still cost $10 million. READ what I said. I take objection to taxpayer money being spent this poorly with no benefit to the taxpayers. Your profile says you are in HEF, my guess is you are an overpaid government worker or contractor who has time to post on social media forums an average of 4 times a day, go get a life, you are just a keyboard warrior. Your foaming at the mouth comment ****ed me off.
Click to expand...

First of all, yes I work for the government. Until May 4th every year they get every penny I make, after that date they let me keep some.

As for the cost, you indicated that you didn't know why it cost so much. I pointed you towards the primary sources that can tell you the breakdown. The 2012 article you quoted lumps everything together. A big chunk in this project is the nannystate mandate of 'wetland mitigation' and FAA rules that require the airport to gain control of the obstacle planes through buyout or easements. If you want to get a runway extension for the $400k that it costs to pave some dirt, find a way to escape wetland mitigation and part 77 obstacle planes.

Btw. The meetings of airport advisory board and county commission are open to the public. How many times in the 8 years since these plans were written have you asked to be recognized at either of these meetings to voice your objection to the scope of the project ? I guess it's easier to be a keyboard warrior than to show actual Civic engagement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top