New Haven Independent

Posted by: cedarhillresident | February 8, 2008 8:54 AM

Can we do a poll at the gate to see who really uses this airport? Really...how many people that live and work in New Haven really use it??

Posted by: Gary Doyens | February 8, 2008 10:19 AM

Enter the fresh scrubbed, cherubic faces of youth, certain a better day is just around the corner for Tweed Airport. It's just what the mayor ordered. Well, it's going to take a lot more than a new shade of lipstick to get many taxpayers to kiss this pig called Tweed. We have been subsidizing it for years and promised much to no avail. If we shut it down tomorrow, New Haven taxpayers may be on the hook to repay tens of millions of dollars in previous grants from the FAA and now, the airport authority wants to take on another $10 million grant without the support of taxpayers in Easthaven or New Haven, even as they ask for another dependency payment this year. It's time to get honest and straight answers to these questions:

1. The Tweed Airport is supposed to have economic benefits. Specifically, what are they and why are they important to property taxpayers?

2. The Tweed Airport is supposed to have a business plan that moves it from dependency to viability. Where is it and what are the detailed steps to getting there including timelines and political alliances necessary to get it done? Is it realistic?

4. What specific activities, initiatives or steps has Mayor DeStefano or other city officials already done to create an alliance with Easthaven City Hall AND the residents affected or worried by Tweed growth/expansion?

3. The Tweed aficionados talk about increasing travelers as a path to sustainability. Why? For most families, the connections are not that great and overall price of a ticket is more expensive than can be found at other nearby airports within an easy drive of New Haven (Philly, Newburgh, White Plains, Islip and Bradley.) Have you developed an alternative?

4. Has anyone looked at changing the focus of the airport to emphasize business, corporate and private jet/plane service vs. holding your breath hoping for additional airlines with competitive service that will appeal to the masses in order to double the number of travelers out of Tweed?

5. Do not use the word convenience as a selling point. That's a pitiful and weak argument. New Haven cannot compete with Tampa - major airport, direct flights, hotels and restaurants on and very near the airport, conference capable - we are not in that league. By the way, it is not that difficult to get to New Haven - you just have to drive the final leg from one of those nearby airports with the direct flights which in many cases is faster than changing planes, dealing with delays and wait time between flights before you finally land conveniently in New Haven.

Posted by: charlie | February 8, 2008 10:26 AM

CedarHill, you are really missing something. How many people in New Haven use our port? Probably about 0, given that it handles cargo, but 1,000+ people's jobs depend on it and it isn't going anywhere.

It is ridiculous that the airport wasn't expanded long ago. Not expanding is making our region's economy stagnate. Given this fact, East Haven should lose all federal and state funding until they agree to allow the safety areas to be repaved.

The environmental lawsuit is completely absurd. The small amount of degraded wetlands lost by paving safety areas would be replaced nearby and be better than the original ones. Rebuilding, and then eventually expanding, Tweed would be great for the environment because some of the 2 million people in the area who currently have to drive very far to get to an airport could take much shorter trips.

I'm surprised environmentalists aren't lobbying for paving the safety areas, given that it might be the single-most environmentally-friendly action that Connecticut could take to improve the environment.

Posted by: Ned | February 8, 2008 12:32 PM

I use the airport, and my partner does too. Convenience is a major selling point. When I talk to people, seems like a lot of them don't know that there is an airport in New Haven - hello marketing! If East Havener's are concerned about the environmental effect of transportation infrastructure, they should cast their eyes on I95 - pollution, increased traffic, fatal car wrecks, etc.

Posted by: PowertothePeople | February 8, 2008 3:36 PM

I would LOVE to use the airport and every time I fly the first thing I do is check for flights out of and into Tweed. I have NEVER found one that was going where I needed to go that didn't add 2 legs and at least $100 to the cost. People coming to visit me have found the same thing. Even with time, gas and parking it is better to drive to Hartford or for international flights to JFK than it is to fly out of Tweed. I don't know how they can fix it and frankly don't fly enough to spend time thinking about it but when I do fly it would be nice to need 15 minutes to get to the airport instead of over an hour.

Posted by: Esbe | February 8, 2008 4:17 PM

The benefit to New Haven taxpayers is growing businesses here. Many young "tech" and biotech firms are here, but they have the option of leaving (as several have already.)

Gary, we ought to be able to compete with Tampa for the business travel of a firm located in New Haven, CT! Hartford is fine for personal travel (you can get there pretty easily) but it is not at all good for business travelers coming to New Haven; having to rent a car and find your way all the way to New Haven just sucks compared to doing business in almost any other city.

Clearly this rapidly growing firm Higher One is staying here because of a commitment to New Haven, and just as clearly getting Tweed to work is one of their highest local priorities. So there you have local entrepreneurs telling you exactly what they need; we can listen or we can stagnate. As Paul has recognized on this site, Higher One hires across the range from experienced high tech workers to entry-level service workers, it exactly the kind of company that you want to have here.

Do you want to grow the tax base and grow jobs or not?

Posted by: Yair | February 8, 2008 4:26 PM

I agree with Powertothepeople and have had the same experiences. Moreover, after initially (a few years ago) following this and wishing Tweed the best, I have come to the conclusion that it's a waste of money and effort. The city and state would be better off building high-speed rail service to Bradley. This would cost more up front, but would have a lot more benefits in the long run. Even with driving and parking Bradley is more convenient than Tweed -- imagine how it would be if you just had to catch a 45 minute train ride.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | February 8, 2008 4:46 PM

My only problem with the air port is that it keeps asking for help and is not growing. I would not have a problem at all with it growing ( It would be great for the city) But if it is not something that is going to happen and they need to take our tax dollars then there comes a point where it need to be reviewed. If the city can maybe, get the state to step in and get the "Easht" Haven to let it expand then of course I am totally in support of it.

Posted by: Edward_H | February 8, 2008 5:50 PM

PowertothePeople

Your post sums up everything I was going to write myself. Every flight I have ever needed to take I could find much better airfares at the other regional airports. Anyone else wondering from which airport the mayor and other city official fly out from when they travel?

Posted by: Gary Doyens | February 8, 2008 6:32 PM

ESBE: The majority of Higher One's employees as I understand it are call center employees. These folks do not travel. So we're really talking about a convenience for the executives, managers perhaps and some customers who have a desire to visit the campus to see first hand how the company conducts itself.

But you're dreaming if you think New Haven can compete with Tampa as a seminar/sales destination even if the the company headquarters is here. It has direct flights from all over the country - always has, always will. Tweed will never have that volume. Having a limited Tweed has not stopped or hampered Yale New Haven Hospital from treating people from all over the world - including having many of its researchers fly all over the country and world for seminars and the like. Further, if Higher One has its upcoming seminar anywhere but at the airport in Tampa, it will still require the business traveler to rent a car, hire a limo or take the commuter bus to the hotel or final destination. What's the difference?

I fully support economic development and we desperately need our tax base to grow. But it is a myth that you have to have an airport in your backyard to be successful. Even if you believe you have to have it...when is Tweed going to be able to support itself and what are the specific steps and plans to get there? I have listed the bare minimum of questions above that any venture capitalist or legitimate business person would be asking and demanding before ponying up $900,000 a year for years on end. I imagine Higher One had to have developed projections and financial models showing profitability before winnning $17 million in venture capital. We deserve no less.

I have listened to and seen a lot of happy talk and wishful, wistful eyes - and no success.

Posted by: James | February 8, 2008 7:52 PM

I travel very frequently for business and have stopped using Tweed for a number of reasons. None of them is price. When traveling for business, my time is worth far more than any savings I would see from making the hour-long trip to Hartford. Most business travelers will tell you the same. Tweed, in theory, is extremely convenient. After an 18 hour day of traveling and meetings, it galls me to no end to fly over my home at 300+ miles per hour only to arrive home 90 minutes later. The problem, in part, is Philadelphia. Philly is by far the worst airport in the country. This is not hyperbole. Check the stats. Philly sucks. Flights are invariably delayed or canceled. Typically I'll spend as much as $300 to avoid Philly (and, by proxy,Tweed). But through Tweed New Haven, I have no choice. More route choices would go a long way to help Tweed. Tweed could really be an enormous asset. Especially to the kinds of travelers that could ultimately help pull this city of of the cesspool in which it resides.

To poster Yair, high speed rail is not a panacea to all transportation needs. It's a buzzword with no meaning behind it. To say that it would cost more upfront is an enormous understatement. You could level Tweed to the ground and rebuild it five times over before it would even begin to approach the first year's interest on the bonds that it would take to pay for high speed rail. On top of that, there's not enough distance between Hartford and New Haven for high speed rail to get up to speed. High speed rail between Boston, New York, and D.C. MIGHT make sense if it were remotely affordable. You might as well suggest a rocket ship.

Fixing Tweed may be a good step towards economic development in this city. Mobility and accessibility are absolute necessities for a strong economy. But the citizenry and the current administration seem so dedicated to the crappy status quo and throw up so many roadblocks to development that the money is going elsewhere.

Nobody in their right mind would choose to do business in New Haven when there are plenty of alternatives that actually encourage and attract businesses. We have Yale. And nothing else to recommend us.

My company employs a good number of people at a salary well above the national average. We could be an asset to New Haven. Instead we are shrinking because we cannot convince anybody to come to New Haven to work for us. And when we do, all we get are kids that don't care about where they live. Give them a few years, experience, and opportunity elsewhere and they move. Nobody wants to be here. Certainly nobody wants to move their family here, what with our schools, drugs, crime and filth. And before some genius give me the, "If you don't like it, get out," line, I will. Just as soon as your ubercrappy housing market and your subprime wasteland allow me to sell my house at anything less than a 20% loss.

Wake up and demand some change, people. Because there are plenty of people like me (good-earning, mobile, tax paying professionals) that are getting pretty tired of the social-service mentality here and will soon take our interests elsewhere. And yes, the lack of mobility is a big part of it.

Posted by: MAC | February 9, 2008 10:59 AM

I completely agree with the James' argument on the importance of an airport in the region - though I differ strongly on the other comments about the region. I live in the New Haven area but work at a company just south of Hartford. I used to fly out of Tweed all the time when Delta had the service to Cincinnati, but I too find the service to Philadelphia horribly unpredictable so now suck it up and drive the extra 45 mins each way to South Windsor. People should not fool themselves - the presence of an active airport is a real deciding factor when a business settles on where to establish an office or when a mobile professional, who works remotely, decides where to live. My company has over 10 offices around the world and regional salespeople and services employees who work out of their own homes. This is not very different from most mid size to large companies in the US. For these companies employees from these remote offices/homes will often need to fly to headquarters for meetings. Clients also come to our offices all the time, as do business partners. People from headquarters need to visit clients and partners all the time too. The ability for these employees, clients and partners to get in and out of our office efficiently has a lot of business value - reducing wasted travel time is key. For example, we considered moving our HQ a couple of years ago and one main consideration was we could not be further away from Bradley. Travel is an essential component of any growing business because there is so much movement of people both from and to the city where the business is located. Most businesses will want an airport less than 30 minutes away. Bradley really is too far for businesspeople wanting to make day trips to or from New Haven (early morning flight in, late flight out).

It is also important to point out that it is not just the "executives" who fly a lot. Salespeople, people who install products at client sites, client account managers and trainers for all sorts of businesses need to travel. It is also important to realize that addressing the travel needs of local residents is only half of the equation - as mentioned above local businesses need people from the outside to visit and the current lack of flying options into New Haven is a real burden for these organizations.

Not having an airport with more options is a severe detriment to all organizations in the New Haven area - not just businesses. A friend who helped lead a nonprofit in DC wanted to expand her organization's services in New Haven (and there was strong mutual desire), but she has young kids and needs to be able to make day trips to her locations. By the time she flew to Hartford, rented a car and drove the hour south she did not have enough time to do what she needed to do before she had to go back to Hartford. She specifically said her organization would do more in New Haven if there were direct flights to Tweed for her and her staff. They are involved still but in a limited way because of the need to limit the number of trips they make (and no need to bring up the train option here - trains are fine for leisurely trips and if you do not care about Amtrak making you late - if you want to be in and out of DC in a day you need to fly).

Regarding the whole Tampa discussion, I don't think Tweed needs to service every location in the country. If Tweed just had flights to various airlines' major hubs like Atlanta and Cincinnati for Delta, Charlotte, Reagan National and Philly for USAir, Detroit and Minneapolis for Northwest, and Chicago and Dallas for United/American, you would solve 80% of travelers' demands. Generally speaking you have to fly through these cities anyway out of Bradley.

And if people are worried there would not be enough demand for Tweed, remember there will be pressure for the NY airports to begin limiting any additional flights given how busy there are, creating spillover demand for the region - New Haven is a very attractive alternative for those living in eastern Fairfield county, and airlines will realize that.

I realize these points are more oriented toward businesses and other organizations (like Yale) that would have people travelling from and to all the time, but these dynamic organizations are exactly what we need to have in the region. They are also the organizations that support an airport - much more than local vacation goers. If all we cared about were making our lives easier when we went on vacation, Tweed would not be a priority. But if we care about making the region a dynamic, growing place that is not passed by in this world of mobile workers and service-oriented businesses, the growth of Tweed is essential.

Posted by: DMacK | February 9, 2008 3:34 PM

I completely agree with the James' argument on the importance of an airport in the region - though I differ strongly on the other comments about the region. I live in the New Haven area but work at a company just south of Hartford. I used to fly out of Tweed all the time when Delta had the service to Cincinnati, but I too find the service to Philadelphia horribly unpredictable so now suck it up and drive the extra 45 mins each way to South Windsor. People should not fool themselves - the presence of an active airport is a real deciding factor when a business settles on where to establish an office or when a mobile professional, who works remotely, decides where to live. My company has over 10 offices around the world and regional salespeople and services employees who work out of their own homes. This is not very different from most mid size to large companies in the US. For these companies employees from these remote offices/homes will often need to fly to headquarters for meetings. Clients also come to our offices all the time, as do business partners. People from headquarters need to visit clients and partners all the time too. The ability for these employees, clients and partners to get in and out of our office efficiently has a lot of business value - reducing wasted travel time is key. For example, we considered moving our HQ a couple of years ago and one main consideration was we could not be further away from Bradley. Travel is an essential component of any growing business because there is so much movement of people both from and to the city where the business is located. Most businesses will want an airport less than 30 minutes away. Bradley really is too far for businesspeople wanting to make day trips to or from New Haven (early morning flight in, late flight out).

It is also important to point out that it is not just the "executives" who fly a lot. Salespeople, people who install products at client sites, client account managers and trainers for all sorts of businesses need to travel. It is also important to realize that addressing the travel needs of local residents is only half of the equation - as mentioned above local businesses need people from the outside to visit and the current lack of flying options into New Haven is a real burden for these organizations.

Not having an airport with more options is a severe detriment to all organizations in the New Haven area - not just businesses. A friend who helped lead a nonprofit in DC wanted to expand her organization's services in New Haven (and there was strong mutual desire), but she has young kids and needs to be able to make day trips to her locations. By the time she flew to Hartford, rented a car and drove the hour south she did not have enough time to do what she needed to do before she had to go back to Hartford. She specifically said her organization would do more in New Haven if there were direct flights to Tweed for her and her staff. They are involved still but in a limited way because of the need to limit the number of trips they make (and no need to bring up the train option here - trains are fine for leisurely trips and if you do not care about Amtrak making you late - if you want to be in and out of DC in a day you need to fly).

Regarding the whole Tampa discussion, I don't think Tweed needs to service every location in the country. If Tweed just had flights to various airlines' major hubs like Atlanta and Cincinnati for Delta, Charlotte, Reagan National and Philly for USAir, Detroit and Minneapolis for Northwest, and Chicago and Dallas for United/American, you would solve 80% of travelers' demands. Generally speaking you have to fly through these cities anyway out of Bradley.

And if people are worried there would not be enough demand for Tweed, remember there will be pressure for the NY airports to begin limiting any additional flights given how busy there are, creating spillover demand for the region - New Haven is a very attractive alternative for those living in eastern Fairfield county, and airlines will realize that.

I realize these points are more oriented toward businesses and other organizations (like Yale) that would have people travelling from and to all the time, but these dynamic organizations are exactly what we need to have in the region. They are also the organizations that support an airport - much more than local vacation goers. If all we cared about were making our lives easier when we went on vacation, Tweed would not be a priority. But if we care about making the region a dynamic, growing place that is not passed by in this world of mobile workers and service-oriented businesses, the growth of Tweed is essential.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | February 10, 2008 7:53 AM

Mac: I understand and agree with all that you said and I understand how it can be a real convenience for business - However, Tweed's viability hinges on doubling the passenger count and that is not going to come from business when there is only one airline and its only connection is Philly.

Families are not going to use Tweed for vacation travel because of the connections and because of the price. If you can save $400 - $600 for a family of four, by driving to Philly or Newburgh, NY, they will opt for that.

So, if Tweed cannot provide non-business travelers with incentives to travel, it is reduced to business people. There are not currently enough business travelers through Tweed for it to sustain itself. The fundamental question and the same one I posed above, is what specific steps need to be taken to get to viability via business travelers or an expanded model of more business oriented activities at the airport i.e. private jets and planes, servicing same or some other configuration?

Look - if having the airport is such a boom to economic development, the people advocating for this city expenditure need to lay out that rationale as well as what specifically is being done to move from dependency to viability. Spending $10 million with other needed elements missing so that two years from now, we're still talking about this and nothing has advanced beyond the safety improvements - what's the point? You'll have longer runways, no more travelers than you do today and another request for $900,000.

Posted by: charlie | February 10, 2008 1:55 PM

You all hit the nail right on the head. The expansion of Tweed, so it can realistically accommodate a few commercial flights to Chicago, Orlando, Cinci or Atlanta, should be our region's (if not state's) #1 priority.

It is absolutely ridiculous that this hasn't been more of a high-priority issue for the past 20 years. It would do more to improve the economy and the environment than anything else.

Posted by: strangerthanfiction | February 11, 2008 1:05 AM

Airlines have tried and bailed out on Tweed as often as sports teams came and went at the Coliseum. If the market is repeatedly tested and repeatedly shows something doesn't work here, it's time to stop putting our tax dollars and resources into it. We've got to keep focusing on what we do well and discarding what is proven to not work here.

Posted by: Ned | February 11, 2008 7:51 AM

Strangerthanfiction: can we apply your marketing test to the New Haven Housing Authority and the Board of Education too, please?

Posted by: Da Hill | February 11, 2008 9:01 AM

The Cities Economic Development Plan is based on the ridiculous theory of "if you build it they will come..."

The problem with this is unless you can define who "they" are, you will never be able to actually grow your cities economy. The "they" should be existing new haven citizens not this make believe population that no one has ever met.

Its like Shartenburg...Who is supposed to move into all those units? What retailer are supposed to fill up all this ground level retail that we hear talked about constantly in these forums? We have too much retail space currently, and we can give away.

So while I do not mean to be overly negative, I do want some accountability from our leaders that seem to think we are all idiots that nods and approves everything that comes out of their mouths. Economic Development is investing in the infrastructure you have to make it independently sustainable. Only then can you strategically plan to increase growth...not, shoot for the stars and hope it works.

I am tired of this, I am moving out...oh wait, I cant sell this house cause no one is moving in...

Posted by: fedupwithliberals | February 11, 2008 10:52 AM

NED

Masterfully done! Brevity is the soul of wit.

Posted by: John Padilla | February 11, 2008 11:54 AM

I am a frequent traveler who uses Bradley because Tweed cannot get me to where I need to be without extra stops and extra costs. If Tweed offered regional jet service to Atlanta, Chicago and DC, we could get anywhere from there and usage of the airport would zoom. And by the way, the airplanes would be quieter! If I bought a house next to an airport, it should not come as a surprise to me that there will be airplanes flying overhead.

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | February 11, 2008 5:28 PM

My wife travels by air to and from every week. She could use Tweed but chooses Bradley every time. It has nothing to do with cost and everything to do with convenience. She tried Tweed for a few months but got stuck in Philly so many times she gave up. She finds the quick ride to/from Bradley never to be a problem for her. On top of that, she often gets a direct flight. You never get a direct flight from Tweed. Any time you save by driving over the Q bridge instead of driving to Bradley is lost in the stop-over in Philly. When do you pull the plug on a project that continues to fail over and over at the cost of about a million dollars a year (not counting capital projects)? Its sad, but its time to let Tweed die.

Posted by: J. Hart | February 11, 2008 10:24 PM

Jeffery, I had the same experience. I tried using Tweed for business travel but simply found it too unreliable. But by your own admission, the problem is, at least in large part, Philly and not Tweed. As many have mentioned, regional jets really are the perceived future of air travel. With better service to more cities, couldn't Tweed have a chance? I agree that continuing to throw money at a problem is not going to make things any better. But there are a whole lot of failed programs supported by New Haven that I would like to see discontinued/disbanded before giving up on Tweed.

Posted by: Esbe | February 11, 2008 11:32 PM

Everyone is correct about getting stuck in Philly and also about regional jets with direct service to more hubs being the answer. Gary -- as you probably actually know there is a detailed business plan for Tweed -- the first thing is the runway safety extension has to get built.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | February 12, 2008 6:10 PM

ESBE: I am not aware of their detailed business plan. I was just on their website and there is no business plan listed, just a series of improvements they hope to make. I'm talking about a detailed business plan that projects revenues, passenger counts, marketing, expenses, capital improvements and the rationale for it all including the new $10 million plan and the years of future dependency payments from city taxpayers.

Further, and this goes directly to what I've been saying about Tweed for the last four years - normal people not on business, that would be leisure travelers will not choose Tweed unless money is not a consideration. Yet, the leisure traveler is exactly who the Tweed proponents say they need to capture in order to move from dependency to viability.

Go the Tweed Airport Authority site - at the top is a press release, more than a year old, and it's touting "amazing fare reductions." I just priced out a trip to Tampa, FL for a family of four. The only connection is through Philly, which we all know, leaving on a Saturday and coming back on a Sunday a week later and the cost is $4,640.

On sidestep.com I found a flight out of Philadelphia that flies direct to Tampa - air time is three hours and for a family of four, same dates, the rate is $787. From LaGuardia, the rate is $872.

With business travelers avoiding Philly, and leisure travelers buying cheaper flights with easy drive distances - question is why fly Tweed? If these factors are not considered in the business plan, wherever that may be, why should the proponents collect another million from taxpayers?

Posted by: charlie | February 13, 2008 3:02 AM

Gary, your point makes absolutely no sense to me for the following two reasons: 1) Tweed's "load factor" (% of flights/seats that are full) is quite favorable, so obviously it is used by people who are able to find available flights going to their destination, and 2) my friends and I have found flights leaving from Tweed to often be CHEAPER than those from any other airport in the area. The anecdote you give obviously indicates that you have an agenda to push here. Expanding service at Tweed is absolutely critical to the long-term economic health of our region in terms of retaining the tens of thousands of high-wage jobs currently located here, and I therefore hope that governments at all levels will strongly advocate for safety improvements and eventual expansion as soon as possible.

The business plan needs two or three new airlines to fly from destinations like Chicago and Atlanta to New Haven. If the planned improvements are made this year or next year, I believe that will happen very quickly. Obviously until the runway is made safer, there is no way commercial service can be attracted to Tweed.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | February 13, 2008 10:08 AM

Charlie: You've OFTEN found CHEAPER fares at Tweed? Perhaps you're better at booking flights than I am. Try to book a family of four to Tampa for a week, or Orlando, Chicago or LA. Please report back those cheaper fares out of Tweed together with the number of stops and plane changes.

Second, load factors at Tweed are good. Limited flights to a single destination will always yield a higher load factor. But when you add airlines, those load factors are diluted because there are no more flyers than before. Profits go down, airlines pull out. How many times are we going to play that song?

Your idea of "they'll come if we build it" is hardly new - The question is not will another airline come, but will another airline stay?

As for my agenda, I do have one. I'm sick and tired of having my hard earned money wasted on programs and iniatives that are not working, have no plan for working and are on an annual life support. Tweed has been collecting dependency payments for years - $800,000 - $900,000 annually. They've gotten tens of millions of dollars in grants from the FAA. They're getting another $10 million for these safety improvements. There is no marketing budget and I have not seen a strategic plan that lays out the multi-pronged approach necessary to move to viability and sustainability. Just this annual piecemeal stuff that benefits a few people.

Posted by: charlie | February 13, 2008 11:50 AM

Gary, expanded safety areas would change the situation you're complaining about, enabling more efficient jets (carrying more passengers) going to more popular hub destinations such as Atlanta and Chicago. That would change the equation. Let's hope that happens as soon as possible.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | February 13, 2008 4:52 PM

charlie

That would be great that is what we would all love to see. But that is what we haven been waiting for, for a very long time. We have watched company's come and go, try to save it, trying to make it better, and everyone of them failed in the end. If we can not get the guarantee as tax payer, with a who, what, where, when and how. Then to alot of people it is the same old story a different decade.