Not coming to an airport near me
Our town has an underused airport. It has two flights a day to Salt Lake City and one to LA. We’ve been told that our airport is underused because it can’t handle big planes like 737’s and larger.
Work is underway on an expensive replacement airport in a different part of town (unsurprisingly one that isn’t developed but that some landowners would like to see developed). A feeder highway is being built. And a nice new airport with lots of room, charged parking and new runways.
Trouble is… the new runways won’t hold a 737. But check out the pictures on their replacement airport website. All big planes – THAT can’t be used on the runways they are building – and this text:
The Replacement Airport became necessary when larger commercial service and business aircraft began to operate or were expected to operate in the near future at the existing airport.
but… but the runways won’t hold the planes shown or promised.
We are told the runways can be upgraded “easily” to accommodate bigger aircraft. When needed.
Your own website ways it was needed now.
What happened is that local government in cahoots with local developers concocted a “what do we need to sell this” plan. A big part of the drawback of the current airport is that it is served by turbo-prop airplanes. Propellers! How quaint. Nobody likes those.
So promise us jets, get the new airport, but then woosh… pull out the rug and give us propellers again.
In a perfect world the fiends that foisted this on us would lose their jobs. However, Utahns are renowned for sending the same frauds back into office for life, so I suppose I won’t hold my breath.
January 26th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
You’ll probably get Delta/Sky West CRJ700′s on your 8,000 foot runway. Maximum take off length 5,100 feet. Nice 50 seat plane, an hour to BUR, DEN, PHX, SDO, SFO and SLC.
January 26th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Sure, but they could and have run those on the old airport. In fact, I often see one parked there that that probably brought in some Skywest folks on training or other business needs.
The real limiting factor is that few people want to fly here. Bigger airplanes won’t help that.
January 26th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Off topic a little, but am I the only one who doesn’t think Sully is a hero? He had three choice- fly it into Manhattan (certain death), fly it into Newark (same), or try to skim it on the river and hope everyone gets out before it sinks. Skillful, yes, hero-no.
We cheapen the word when we use it do freely or in the wrong context. A hero puts himself in danger when he doesn’t have too. This guy was trying to make the best of a bad situation.
January 26th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
#3… I agree. Amazing feat. Very lucky and skillful. But not particularly brave in the sense of choosing the danger and acting in spite of it. I don’t know, however, how much risk the crew took in placing themselves in continued danger after the crash landing. I suspect that might have been substantial – and heroic.
January 26th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Well, once you realize you survived the landing, and you are floating, and there are a dozen boats headed towards you……
January 26th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
What is the point of dumping on the guy who did good and has the eternal thanks of every passenger?
BTW: the captain who is not the last to leave the ship will never captain another ship. And the airline or ship company whose crew leaves before the last rescuable passenger will not survive.
January 26th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
#6… I agree generally. I just heard him called a hero on The O’Reilly Factor. So I thought more about it. I think it is just a dumbing down of the word – demphasizing the couragen in hero and stressing the skill/timing. For instance, the “hero” of the game hit a home run.
And there is no point, at least not to current civilians like you or me. But to a cop, hero has more personal meaning.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Not dumping on him, obviously, I was dumping on all the pundits who are missusing the word. Why mistate what I said?
Yes, I know some real heroes, who never made the news and weren’t invited to an inauguration, so I tend to get annoyed when the word is cheapened. I assume a Vietnam vet knows a few as well.
September 9th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Ken way to much talk about Sully. I would really like to know more about just what happened to the airport. I see planes landing at the new airport every day now…most likely testing systems, but what happened. Why was the plan changed…or was it the plan all along to keep the big iron out. After all how can you keep charging $300.00 for a flight to SLC when South West can come in with a 737 and do it for $59.00. We’ve got an11,000 foot runways but only need 7,000? I am a pilot and am really glad the airport was moved…it was not safe, two crashes that I know of may not have ended up with dead pilots if it had been at the new location.
This really sounds like a land grab by the City, at the least….and a taxpayer nightmare…..it’s going to cost a lot to keep the new place cool and clean. The list go’s on and on. We really need to know what has happened with this!
September 9th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
just checked some facts….. looks like it will be able to handle 737′s and airbus 319′s..
http://www.sguconstruction.com/factsheet.php
September 10th, 2010 at 8:16 am
Brad – I think that fact sheet is wrong about the current state of what planes it can receive. As I understand it… it needs to be thicker runway to get the bigger planes.
Its been a while since I looked at this, so I’ll probably contact Mayor McArthur and see what he says. I may disagree with him a lot, but he is truthful.
September 10th, 2010 at 8:19 am
The plan was to sell the airport on fear of propeller planes, but then they didnt put the money into the support for them. But the REAL plan was to get the parkway built so that houses could be built on School trust land.
Remember, ALL things in St George can be traced to “can my cousin build a house there for somebody moving in”.
At least they used to be. Now it is “what would you like on your burger”.