New Haven Independent

Posted by: nfjanette | February 7, 2007 4:56 PM

This is very good news. It's been common for many years for business people to have to bypass the convenience of flying out of Tweed because of a several hundred dollar different in price from flying out of Bradley.

Posted by: Cedar Hill Resident | February 7, 2007 4:57 PM

HMMM do ya think this whole thing can fly...???

Sorry could not resist :)

This would be a great thing for New Haven if what he is promising can work. Can tweed handle the traffic?

Posted by: Josh Erlanger | February 7, 2007 7:50 PM

I think this is good news but a bit silly. Dont get me wrong I love flying out of tweed and try to whenever I can but why would you fly from tweed to phily, have a lay over in phily, get delayed then get on another plane to BWI for $120.00 when us air goes to Reagan out of BDL for $140.00. $20.00 more for a direct flight is a no brainer. The only thing that will save this airport is expanding the runway and getting real planes instead of the puddle jumpers that fly out now. Its to bad a few east haven politician are willing to to stifle the entire areas economy so a few millionaire's can better enjoy their beach front estates. Also just for comparison bdl - pit is $175.00 on Continental vs $240 with a lay over from tweed. BDL to Orlando is $300 Vs $280 from tweed with a layover so this really makes no monetary sense from a consumers point of view. I got all of these price on kayak.com

Posted by: JP | February 7, 2007 8:52 PM

This is good news and is in addition to the news that Pan Am Clipper Connection will start flying out of Tweed to four cities soon, including D.C. And this was accomplished without lengthening the runway or blowing up East Haven. Isn't it nice that things can be accomplished without destroying someone's quality of life?

Posted by: TZ | February 8, 2007 10:13 AM

If only they had the option of more direct flights. That is the real killer here. I would rather drive to Hartford and get a direct flight for a few dollars more to avoid the hassles.

I am going to try flying out of HVN first from now on though. It is such a huge convenience having an airport less than 10 minutes away

Posted by: nutmeg | February 8, 2007 11:07 AM

East Haven's recalcitrant attitude is a major drag on the region.

What do Yuma, AZ, Elko, NV, Minor, ND and Kodiak, AK all have in common? All their airports had more enplanements than did Tweed in 2005. Get real, East Haven!

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/passenger/media/cy05_primary_np_commercial.xls

Posted by: charles | February 8, 2007 2:43 PM

Tweed is incredibly convenient. Worth paying a little more for, even if it isn't a direct connection. The layover is usually very short.

As far as East Haven goes, the entire area should be bulldozed and the airport doubled in size. It's absolutely ridiculous that one mayor and a few hundred residents can hold the rest of the region hostage. It's costing us all billions of dollars in economic development over the next 20 years. I think the State should intervene on behalf of the other 1,000,000 people who live in this area, and take over the property immediately. Also what's with the environmental problems? Clearly it's just a way to stall the project. The environmental benefits of 1,000,000 people not having to drive as far for a plane connection would VASTLY outweigh a dozen or two acres of wetland!

Posted by: JP | February 8, 2007 7:58 PM

Why is there so much griping about this airport? I fail to see what the expansion would accomplish. Delta was here without it. United was here without it. US Air offered more flights without it. Yuma, Elko, Minot, and Kodiak do not (as far as I know) have 4 major airports within 2 hours of them. I suggest Josh Erlanger take a drive to the East Haven area that would be affected, these houses are not owned by millionaires. If the airlines wanted to be here they would be here. The White Plains, NY airport has some of the most stringent restrictions on flights yet they have many major airlines serving the airport, so there are other factors than the expansion that airlines are looking at. This reminds me of professional sports and new stadiums. If we expand the airport the airlines will come, is that the thinking? If only I had my New Haven Coliseum history handy....

Posted by: charles | February 8, 2007 11:54 PM

Are you kidding? The airport would have more flights if you simply extended the runway by about 1,000 feet - which would have a very minor impact on the town. If you doubled it, even better. Face it, it's a handful of greedy homeowners holding up the roughly 2,000,000 people for whom Tweed is the closest airport.

Posted by: JP | February 9, 2007 1:49 AM

JP you must be kiding. for tweed to work there need to be direct flights to at least 5 major citys like miami or vegas. you need 747s to fly out of the airport not 16 seat twin props. The issue is large planes can't land or take off here because the runway is to short. useing google earth you can see the white plains airport runway is 1.27 miles tweed is only 1.08 miles. Its that quarter mile that gets them Toronto, Cleveland, Atlanta, Chicago-O'Hare, Wash.-Dulles, Boston, Charlotte, NC, Philadelphia, Wash.-Reagan and more while we get phily and soon BWI. As for the Coliseum the only thing that killed that was better venues like the casinos. If you think that houses on the moris cove beach are not million dollar houses here are a few examples from zillow.com
388 cosey beach ave - $1.1 million
250 cosey beach ave $770,000
56 morris cove road $780,00
90 morris cove road $755,000
50 little bay lane $890,000
17 killams point $1,750,000

Posted by: CTdan | February 9, 2007 10:31 AM

Let's face it, Tweed will never be an adequate airport unless it is expanded. They can lower the prices all they want, but until more airlines fly out of there and to more destinations, no one will want to fly out of there.

Tweed needs to be seen as part of the regional transportation problem, and the city, state, whatever must work to get it expanded so that it can become a real airport. The Port Authority of New York just bought an airport 60 miles north of the City in Westchester to make it the region's 4th major airport, with Newark, LaGuardia, and Kennedy reaching capacity within 15 years. Tweed is 75 miles northeast of the city, and should be able to serve the same purpose. With the bottleneck that is lower Fairfield county, an expanded Tweed would see business from that area because of it's convenience (the rail line would be extended to the airport in a perfect world), in addition to the people of greater New Haven.

Will it cost billions, yes. But the point is that to keep the region from dying everything possible must be done to improve transportation, and Tweed is one major aspect of that.

If the town of East Haven wants to destroy the economic possibilities of the entire region, then the state must step in and do something, anything, to get the airport expanded. I'd love to see New Haven annex East Haven, but that'll never happen.

But unless things happen, and soon, jobs will continue to leave, and more and more people will move to Virginia and Nevada. It's going to be Upstate New York Redux, and it's sad that one town of 28,000 is willing to kill an entire region just so they don't have an inconvenience.

Posted by: Robn | February 9, 2007 11:27 AM

Hmm? Bulldoze the area? Isn't this exactly what caused a national uproar in last year? (Kelo v. New London) What happened to the rights of the individual homeowners in the area? Isn't it more than just an issue of blank wetlands or the land on which the runway extension is built.. but also the peace and quiet of those around the airport? Doesn't this count for anything? For those who would accuse nearby homeowners of false expectations, how can you accuse them of being naive becasue they bought property near a small, quiet airport? Is it unreasonable for them to expect that their environment stay nearly the same? Do our NHI Paleo-Conservatives find themselves in a strange position being lectured on the rights of individuals by a NHI staunch liberal? Hmm?

P.S. Is it really that hard to drive 40 minutes to Hartford to catch a long distance direct flight? (it takes longer for NYC, LA and Houston residents to get to their airports.)

Posted by: charles | February 9, 2007 2:56 PM

Robn, individual rights only go so far. The State needs to step in when the rights of a few hundred people are less important than the rights for millions of other people. Before Teddy Roosevelt, companies were throwing rat meat and dogs into our meat to save money because their owners had the "right" to.

Posted by: JP | February 9, 2007 3:19 PM

I guess my comments caused an uproar. Zillow.com is not an accurate evaluator of real estate values, check out your neighbors houses on that site and see what you think. Charles, I understand your point, but can you tell me why United flew 737's out of Tweed in the 90's even though the airport was not expanded? Delta flew out of Tweed but withdrew and it was not because of the runway length. I think it is bad policy and action to try and placate an industry that is frequently going into bankruptcy and restructuring. Let's say we do extend the runway and two airlines come in, what is going to stop them from pulling the service if they go bankrupt? Airlines are not reliable. We would be better off with a local start-up airline that would fly to ten destinations rather than a major airline that could drop us at any time. I would love to fly from Tweed rather than BDL but the answer is not to extend the runway.

Maybe we should bulldoze the East Rock neighborhood, it might just be the flattest part of New Haven and just the right size for an airport. (I live in the East Rock neighborhood)

Posted by: Josh Erlanger | February 9, 2007 4:30 PM

ROBN wow everything you just said is so wrong. First off the Kelo v. New London case was about private property being taken from one individual and handed over to a private for profit company. This is about taking property for the greater good of the community to ensure economic viability in the region, the exact reason eminent domain exists. Secondly I think if you buy a house near an airport, casino, office park, or college and expect that that they will never attempt to grow you are completely naive. Lastly its not that hard to drive the 40 minutes to BDL but if you are a business that flies often or if you are holding a convention or any type of event where large a number of people will be flying you would naturally locate in Hartford instead of new haven.That’s why we have no convention center and only 1 major hotel. With out a major airport there’s no reason for business to locate here; but hey you enjoy your peace, quiet and huge tax burden.

Posted by: Esbe | February 9, 2007 6:07 PM

JP -- let's take the case of United's old 737 service to Chicago. Tweed was the shortest runway on which United landed a 737 and it couldn't land fully loaded or in bad weather. Many, many flights to New Haven got canceled on that account. The runway was always an explicit problem with that service.

The talk about bulldozing the neighborhood is stupid. The runway can be extended on the current footprint of the airport. A few trees on nearby property should be taken down for safety reasons. Kelo's irrelevant -- this wouldn't be handing property to private developers.

The folks in East Haven want to stop the runway expansion so that the airport dies (or nearly so) and the value of their houses go up. Folks are building new houses near the end of the runway -- basically speculation on the death of an airport that has operated there for decades. Why should be region support that?

Posted by: cedar hill resident | February 9, 2007 6:46 PM

CTdan I agree with the fact if I were in there shoes how would I feel. It could turn into a New London mess. Dispite the fact that the stretch in New London is better off with what they have planned; it should not of happened because it was just plan wrong no matter what the reason!!
JP New London said it was for the greater good of the community where do we draw the line??
Each time we allow a city to bully people out of there properties (yes yale that includes YOU!) we close the door alittle on our own rights.
Soo no matter how much I agree that if the airport was larger and that it would help the area a great deal I would have to stand with the people (the home owners) and say not here.
I would think that Rell's proposal would cover this very situation fearly??
http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2007/01/eminent_sense_p.php

But I do like these new flights. We have a large number of communters in this city that will use them. That were not living here before. I do not think that the 40 min. ride is an issue or they would not live here but I do think that this would be a major benefit to our city. If it lasts.

And we have more than one major hotel JP :)

Posted by: ROBN | February 10, 2007 11:23 AM

FELLOWS,

I concede that Kelo is not quite the right reference because that was very specifically taking homes for a single private development. Conceptually though, the idea is the same....that the eminent domain would result in overall economic prosperity. With respect to Tweed, I believe that the premise is overblown. Tweed will never be able to compete with Hartford and therefore, will only serve a very small portion of the market. To take homes for the overall economic prosperity of a community is one thing, but to do it for a very slim segment of the community seems wrong to me. I also question whether the oft used phrase "100's of homes" is really accurate. Jets taking off from Tweed are unpleasantly loud for 1000s of homes throughout the center of East Haven. I don't really know about real estate speculation in east haven, but many many people have spent their lives there and deserve more consideration.
I'll stick by my assetton that Hartford is extraordinarily close and is no less convenient than any other major metroploitan airport. Travel to hartford from New Haven is comparable to airport travel distances in metropolitan Houston which is about the same size as CT. Likewise, try to get from manhatten to any NYC airport or Newark and you'll probably spend more time than a trip from New Haven to Hartford.
New Haven's tax burden is not a product of a lack of airport, its a problem with CT taxation in general. Becuase of the PILOT program, New Haven cannot tax Yale and is forced to rescind control of a major budget number to the legislature. Well I don't remember voting for representatives for other towns and cities, so I don't know why they get to control over such a major chunk of our city budget.

Posted by: JP | February 11, 2007 8:45 PM

I am the original JP, someone else used the same initials. I still think expanding Tweed is wrongheaded. Have you been reading the articles that airlines are downgrading planes that fly into BDL? Airlines were flying Boeing 737's and similar aircraft but now are flying smaller 50 seat commuter jets. Doesn't this signal to anyone that airlines are increasingly uninterested in doemestic service? I know a little about the airline business and I have seen that the focus is now on international routes because they are profitable. The airlines that are making a profit on domestic service are the low-cost airlines, e.g Pan Am Clipper Connection. That is the type of airline we will get. 747's do not fly domestic routes anymore, the best New Haven would see is planes similar to those used by Delta. US Air lowered fares in response to Pan Am's arrival, not out of any sense of benevolence. It's good to see that people are optimistic that Tweed could work, but in reality it is a mere pipe dream.

Posted by: robn | February 14, 2007 10:00 AM

if anybody is still following this story, check out this article about the dim future of air travel given the declining curve of fossil fuel discovery.

http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/47960/

Posted by: Rick Lamport | February 23, 2007 4:03 PM

My name is Rick Lamport, the Airport Manager at Tweed New Haven Airport. I read with interest all the above comments and I am delighted to see the debate that the airport generates. This is really good to see. I would like to throw into the mix some factual statements. An airport's primary market is measured by the amount of air tickets generated in a year by the population that resides within a 30 minute drive of that airport. In Tweed's case, the population is about 1.6 million and the actually tickets generated as recorded in 1995 FAA regional study was 4.4million. Tweed currently captures less than 1% of that. By contrast, the same study concluded taht the BDL market population generated 3.06m tickets. The latest NERASP study, www.nerasp.com, fosters similar and consistant results. This clearly illustrates that the HVN air market is tremendously underserved and we are comprimising our very own economic benefit to the extent that more than 40% of the HVN market is not using BDL but is actually leaking out of state to the NY area airports. This of course means economic leakage from both southern CT and the state of CT as a whole. Not a good thing.
Moving on, HVN, contrary to popular belief, is not limited in serving large aircraft by virtue of runway length. More correctly, it is limiting to most commercial JET aircraft for distance, range and thus market destination - not aircraft size. Some of the largest aircraft built like the B757, A300 and the C17 have used this airport. Setting aside different aerodynamic variations, an aircraft for any given weight flies when it gets to a certain speed. The better the power to weight ration the sooner the plane will fly or another in another sense use less runway. The aircraft obviously has to carry sufficient fuel for its destination. That minimum required fuel weight is deducted from the maxium calculated take-off weight allowable. What is left is the available weight for revenue generation in passengers and cargo. Now, it is therefore obviously desirable that an airline operator will want to operate their aircraft at maximum take-off weight therby maximizing revenue geneartion. If the take-off runway available is too short for a particular aircraft to operate at max take-off weight, big or small and for a given power to weight ratio, then something has to give. It needs the fuel so guess what ? The payload or revenue generation weight gets the boot. And that is problem number one for HVN and why carriers have a hard time in operating profitably with jets. It is not the size of the aircrfat that is the issue but how far they can fly and still make money. In actual fact the heavier B757 performs far better off this runway at full load with 220 passengers than the lighter 50 passenger regional jet because the B757 has a better power to weight ratio. No one should be afraid of airport expansion because they fear large aircraft. The market size as reasonably forecasted on its own does not support a carrier utilizing a large aircraft at HVN. There is no point in using a 220 seat aircraft 3 times a day when one will gain more market share with a smaller 70 seat aircraft 6 times a day to different destinations. HVN can gain an extra 1,000 feet of take-off run in either direction without the purchase of another single inch of property. Whiteplains comfortably operates non-stop service to Florida (our largest market) with a B737 from 6,500 feet of runway. We currently have 5,600 feet and can get an extra 1,000 feet for a total of 6,600 feet which includes runway safety areas with out any additional property purchase. Of all the Primary (532) airports in the country supporting jet service which is about 296, only 3% which is 6 in total, have runways less than 6,000 feet and one of them is HVN !! We can make changes to the airport and be sensitive to the surrounding community which will ultimatley benefit from those changes anyway.

I would enjoy talking to anyone about any airport topic. 203 466-8833 ext 101.

Posted by: charles | February 26, 2007 2:40 PM

Excellent points, Rick. All of them. I think it's clear that almost everyone agrees expansion of the airport should be fast-tracked. It should be completed within the next year. Now, in your opinion, how can it be done, politically speaking? Who do I need to keep writing to or calling?

Posted by: Josh Erlanger | February 26, 2007 4:09 PM

Hi Rick,
Thanks for all the great information. In light of this can I ask what is delaying you from creating the extra 1000 feet of runway and how can we all help?

Posted by: Esbe | February 26, 2007 5:12 PM

Rick -- thanks for all the facts!

The most important point you make is that the runway can be expanded by 1000 feet without taking anyone's property. And that extra 1000 feet is necessary to having a successful airport. And, I might add, that having a successful airport is necessary to having thriving regional economy.

So, we are back where we started: can one small neighborhood in East Haven really allowed to kill off the entire region's economic potential?

Posted by: Ben Ross | February 26, 2007 7:24 PM

How do we know the rates will stay low. I have the feeling the writers commenting on this issue have a ulterior motives. Not one home owner! Will the deal be an iron clad low rates deal from now on. The
character of New England still has a few things worth saving, the stubborn pride of place maybe one of them. One plane crash (over your house) makes up for a lot of driving/waiting in traffic time. Do the pictures in this article inspire confidence? I am for staying at home and walking places. Leave the airplanes in NYC.

Posted by: The Count | March 8, 2007 1:49 PM

The low fares are a good start. But that's all it is, a start. It still does not address the real problem of making Tweed a viable transportation facility. I find it difficult at best to believe that an airport surrounded by one and one half million people can't fill a 100-seat plane.
My response to those who say that Tweed is a "money loser" is this: Could you operate YOUR business if there were draconian restrictions placed on the equipment you could use and when you could use it? Such is the case of Tweed's noise ordinance, which is STRICTER than the one the Federal Aviation Agency imposes. Could YOUR business compete without such modern aids as computers or Blackberries? Tweed's runway is still the same length as it was 35 years ago, when Allegheny Airlines was flying Convairs. Could YOUR business operate if there was no safe access? The Orange County Airport in Santa Ana, California has a runway only 100 feet longer than Tweed's. The difference? No, zero, zilch, nada, obstructions on EITHER END of the main runway. And they do just fine.
As for those jet airlines which have served Tweed, for reasons known only to them, they seem to schedule their flights to arrive in New Haven in the early afternoon, too late for those doing business in New Haven to arrive. As a result, many business persons wound up "splitting" their tickets, landing at another airport in the morning, taking surface transportation to New Haven, then flying out of Tweed late in the day.
Tweed can be a great airport. And, ironically, East Haven stands the most to gain without investing one red cent.(I'm sure it was no accident that the town's industrial park is located right next to the airport.)
Finally, consider this: Bradley International Airport is on the list of U.S. airports which will "max out" by the year 2020. What then?
I say, Let's make Tweed succeed!