(back to Main Menu)

Important Points to send in for the record for July 16th Met Council meeting

Go look at the Draft 2030 Plan at Zeroexpansion.com and send in your own points. Here are some of Zero Expansion's Additional points to note for the record:

In 2003 the Met Council, the MAC and MNDOT used FAA grant money to do a study on two-tier reliever regional airports like Rochester, St Cloud, Duluth as relievers for MSP to create more of a state-wide system and alleviate capacity issues at the major hub.

We know that 80% of the St Cloud area drive to MSP to take a flight because varied routes aren't offered locally. Logically that means a good portion of the state are driving to regional hubs or as is most often the case MSP, because the regionals are going to offer much less in the way of flight options. That is of course why there is a national surge in growth at regional airports.

St Cloud appealed to Delta and Southwest to send them some flights; the response was that they had no flights to spare because of the downturn in demand.

The 2030 Draft Plan has revealed to us that in fact the major airlines are redirecting flights, but not to local regional hubs. Obviously this is a predatory business practice not a regional state-wide approach to transporation that accomodates residents in our state.

The Met Council has completely dumped this study evidently because capacity needs at MSP are not an issue, AT THIS TIME. But THIS flies in the face of what other states are doing, fortifying their regional air operations.

If the Met Council is going to hold up other airports in the nation as examples for what we should do locally, why are they cherry picking information? Why are they eliminating the potential of creating a state-wide reliever system, perhaps even run by MNDOT that would eliminate:

  1. The quasi private/public status of the MAC which is making aviation policy based on profit maximization, not their mandated purpose, which is to provide transportation for all.
  2. MAC has to come up with private non-aviation businesses at FCM to make the airport break even. To our knowledge that has not been accomplished. What this suggests is that they are a business using partial public funds to subsidize their own franchisees. Tell me what other business could do that?
  3. All the information that came out of the Reliever Task Force Meetings indicated that the relievers were the least self sufficient GA airports of any in the nation. Why weren't those facts included in the Met Council Draft 2030 Plan.

This isn't an accurate, factual, unbiased transportation plan, it's a forward leaning corporate pitch that cherry picks information, thereby misleading the people and their elected officials.

This truly is an example of government at its worst working to ratchet up profits in one area of the state while the rest of the state has inferior transportation choices when it comes to flying or getting around, other than in a car.

And there will be more as we get closer to the date.


transporationtalk@yahoo.com

Just some quick thoughts. Add these questions/discussions and concerns to the record in blue:
The Met Council/ Consultant Documents contain a lot of contractions-
Critical particulars left out and why:


1. What is the max length of the MINOR II runway?

2. Why would the MINOR I law need to be changed when it is clear there is ample capacity at MSP and all the relievers because of slow growth and changed use?

3. Why is there a need for a new GA airport when the same doc says GA business and use has changed and is in a long downturn?

4. The growth in micro jets and VLJs as indicated is pure predilection. (More importantly neither of these types of aircraft would require a 6.000ft runway.)

7. Another contradiction and outdated premise is the oft used mandate that the MAC must use the relievers to redirect traffic away from MSP. In contradiction the document states MSP will not need any further expansions. They say MSP is cutting capacity and redirecting flights. Why is there a need to expand Anoka and FCM and add another reliever then? We've seen the comparison charts and don't see where any redirect of GA traffic away from MSP is at all indicated. GA traffic is not related to delays at major hubs. Cost of landing there dissuades most. The rationale to divert GA away from MSP was initiated decades ago, and is no longer applicable today and should be changed. If in fact roles have changed, as the documents state, than the old mandates should change.

8. You have Anoka and FCM classified differently as Key and Intermediate airports, yet they are both classified as Minor II airports. If Minor II airports have an ARC of B-II definition, how than can you lump Anoka into Minor II when it has a C III definition?

7. Minor II Airport -- A Minor II Airport is defined as having an ARC of B-II, including precision instrument approach and a primary runway for all-weather service with a minimum length of 4,500 feet. There is usually a mix of piston-powered and turbine-powered aircraft at these airports. Minor II airports typically serve aircraft used for personal business and corporate functions, as well as recreational aviators.

The FAA groups aircraft into Aircraft Categories and Airplane Design Groups based on their approach speed and wingspan, respectively. For example, an airport with a Beech King Air C90 as the critical aircraft (approach speed -- 100 knots and wingspan -- 50.2 feet according to FAA documents) would be designated with an ARC of B-II.

8. Intermediate Airport is C III - that mean larger aircraft and runways up to 6,000ft (page 5-11)
Look at exhibit 5-3 on page 5-11.


Minor II - Wingspan- 49 to < 79 feet

Intermediate III - Wingspan- 79 to <118 feet


Summary (page 5-14)

The airports in the Twin Cities Regional Airport System are classified by a variety of different methods, each tailored to its specific purpose. The system has evolved to the point where there are more distinct roles than exist in the previous system plan.

ZERO-The above statement is clearly not accurate. Use has devolved. The industry has lost pilots and types of aircraft and now it is trying to fill those shoes with aircraft that are virtually untested: Micro Jets and VLJs. The document states that the industry has lost pilots, hobbyists and certain types of aircraft use and a downturn in operations. That's not evoling, it's devolving. At present the forecasted growth in micro jets and VLJs are on paper only. Factories have shut down, or gone into bankruptcy. The FAA has only certified some of these new aircraft only in the past year. There is no reliable data to base potential growth or more importantly safety. YET, the new system plan fails to interprete the losses and instead focuses on pure theoretical projections.

This section identified a need for an airport role suitable for bringing a new airport into the system without imposing burdensome facility and service objectives.

ZERO-What is this about ? Bringing a new airport into the system, for what? The summarization of this chapter is that business is in the dumps and would be for a long time. Another contradiction.

Additionally, a need to distinguish between the Minor Airports that primarily serve business aviation and those that focus on personal and recreational aviation was identified. The previous regional aviation system plan was modified to account for these needs and facility and service objectives were identified for each of these airport roles. Based upon the information gathered in the Inventory chapter and the criteria established in this chapter, each airport was assigned to one of the defined roles. In the next section, the system will be analyzed by comparisons to peer airport systems, and assessments of each airport's respective performance in relation to the recommended facility and service objectives that are based on the roles assigned in this chapter.

FAA rules dictate open access to all, certainly an airport can not refuse to accomodate an aircraft from landing or taking off because it might not fit into the specific role of that particular airport as long as the runway length can accomodate them. The proposed plans feel far out of the scope of the all encompassing FAA rules that pertain to OPEN ACCESS, NO IMPEDIMENT TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE, that would seem to make the role fixation another way to spend taxpayer money to accomodate growth projections that have no historical basis or real numbers.

Summary (Page 4-35)

As of the summer 2009, MSP and the metropolitan regional system are tracking reasonably well with respect to other comparable systems and other hub airports, which indicates that it is a mature system that needs little in the way of expanded facilities. Declines in activity reflect a national response to a deep and likely prolonged recession and volatile fuel prices. Airlines continue to cut or redirect capacity. Discretionary business and general aviation activity is down significantly. The peer review of other airports suggest that Delta has in the past made hard decisions to close or scale back connecting hubs at Dallas-Ft. Worth and Cincinnati. These network changes resulted in considerable loss of enplanements (and revenues) at the affected airports. St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati are all grappling with excess terminal space following changes in hub status. Revenue diversification and redevelopment of airport property are top priorities at these and other airports that have experienced cutbacks in aviation activity. Review of airport hubs by region indicates that the eastern region and mountain states are experiencing the largest growth. Further analysis into fleet mix, service levels, and economic conditions are needed to better assess why the airports on the West Coast and in the central region appear to be growing more slowly or languishing. Finally, Southwest’s entry into the MSP market is very positive. Experience at other airports where Southwest has recently started service suggests that additional nonstop cities are likely to be added at MSP once the economy improves or Southwest can redeploy existing aircraft.

ZERO-These bolded statements would indicate that there is no need to expand further. But the rest of the information and planning in the document contradicts that.
We find the documents to be contradictory; we find they overestimate need when it comes to new types of operations that are virtually, historically untested, particularly when it comes to safety and actual numbers, which is unknown. We find this to be a highly irresponsible route to what should be sound and sane, sustainable aviation planning.
There is no balanced approach exemplified here. We have only to look at the statements made about MSP to understand that the airport is OVERBUILT and has more than it needs for much longer than they identified and all because the so-called planners didn't account for the drastic downturn, due to 9-11 and now the recession and worsening economic picture.
The 2030 plan, as we see it now, is fiscally and practically in no where land; in light of history, that in itself, makes this Draft Plan from the area's transportation planners highly suspect.

transporationtalk@yahoo.com