New Haven Independent

Posted by: lance | February 16, 2009 7:50 AM

If I'm going to support all the deadbeats with my tax dollars I at least deserve an affordable flight option out of new haven, even if it means big jets overhead when I'm trying to bag a big striped bass. Tweed is useless to the middle class traveler at present.

Posted by: jeffreykerekes | February 16, 2009 8:32 AM

Check out our latest post on our website which responds to the City's argument about Tweed: Back And Forth On Tweed

The City argues that the FAA will request $25MM back if the airport is closed, but as far as I understand it this is not set in stone. This has not been explored in detail with the FAA as they have no idea on what terms, depreciation schedule - if we owe this money, for how long and how much less each year we keep it open, or whether they would even be successful in collecting this money if they requested it back. Of course, the City's argument is moot if they keep the airport open - which is what we are saying.

Our main point is that the City could easily charge more money for services they provide to make up this difference but they fail to do so.  They spend $2.50 for every dollar they earn. What happens if we loose our current commercial air service?  We loose even more revenue. They could not answer the question of whether they asked US Air if they plan on staying or how profitable the route is for them (with this economic climate, will they leave?).  The state is cutting $570,000 to the airport next year which means we put in the $160 this year (they are counting on a $160k match from area biz, will that be available next year?) and our normal subsidy payment around $550k not including Capital funds (millions) plus the state's $570k next year.  We are not in favor of closing the airport.  At what point do we say enough is enough and cut our losses?  The $25MM repayment is not clear.  They have no idea if the FAA will collect, if they are able to collect, or on what depreciation schedule the FAA would forgive this amount (for example, how much of the investment do we owe back after each year of continued operation).  Perhaps we should close it in X number of years to minimize our exposure?  The fact is that the City has no answer for this because they think we should have an airport no matter what the cost so they have been unable to provide us with such data.  We asked for information on a "line of business" basis so we could analyze each business component at the airport and we got no response.  What is the cost/revenue for Parking, for example? My understanding is that the $25 million is supposedly FAA grant money to make safety improvements at the airport over some period of years. It carries no interest rate, but the city maintaines that if the airport is shut down, they may have to repay these grants because they were made with the understanding the airport would remain open. How is this number changing over time?? Is the City borrowing more money (or more FAA grants) for it's improvements and hence digging a deeper hole of debt?? And are the Federal improvements of $10.8 MM (?) coming as a Federal grant or is it borrowed? Can Tweed show us the components of this $25 MM, when it began, how it grew and how it will change over time?? Is there interest on this debt?? At 4% interest this alone will add $1 MM a year!!!  Finally, why does this number not show up as a debt burden on the City budget if it is being held over our heads, even on a forgivable basis?

The main question is to ask your alder is for a break even plan for the airport.  They have promised for MANY years the airport will be self-sufficient but that has not happened.  Ask for a written plan which shows FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS not just marketing speak and when the airport will no longer need a subsidy. Ask them to jack up the usage fees TODAY to cover this money. Ask if they have a commitment on the $160,000 from the business community next year and do they know where the $570,000 cut by the Governor will come from? Tell them that means Tweed will need $870,000 next year. Will this come from the City?

Posted by: robn | February 16, 2009 9:25 AM

two dollars and fifty cents charge for landing a plane???? did they freeze that rate in the 1930s?

Posted by: hdavid | February 16, 2009 9:47 AM

Jeffrey gets smarter by the day as the sun rains down upon his visage. He has said it all. I will summarize:

1. The City will have to repay $25 MM in grants for safety improvements. And now we hear from Tim Larson, Executive Director, that the airport will spend another $6 Million from the Feds on more such improvements? Show us the grant documents where we can see the exact terms of the various Federal grants whose repayment is the prize argument for keeping the airport open (else we have to repay this $25 million). Has the City accepted these Federal "grants" that include an open-ended commitment to keeping the airport open indefinitely at a cost enormous City and State subsidies? NOte that the airport is a subsidy guzzler as it spends $2.50 in operating costs for every $1 it takes in revenues. When is the hole deep enough for us to stop digging?

2. Further to point #1 above, what is the legal definition of keeping the airport "open". We at NH CAN do NOT propose to close the airport. Instead, we propose that the City stop wasting money on further improvements in the vain pursuit of further commercial aviation business when even this existing commercial traffic may be in jeopardy. Tweed hosts about 200 passengers/day from 161 total "operations/flights" each day of which over 95% is NOT commercial aviation but private plane operators (called General Aviation).

Has anyone at the Authority sat down with US Air which operates the commercial 5 flights/day into Tweed to determine their breakeven point for this service? If they are making money on this service then they should pay more of the costs Tweed incurs and which is paid for by the taxpayer. If they are not breaking even then we must wonder when they will pull out and move such services to Bradley. Why must the taxpayer subsidize such services in perpetuity?

NHCAN proposes that we keep the airport open -- we all love to see these modern marvels fly -- but would like to make each "line of business" using the airport pay for services received. This means that we charge commercial aviation AND private operators enough to cover costs incurred instead of covering only 40% of costs as at present. (Jeffrey has pointed out that the airport spends $2.50 for every dollar earned).

Raising fees and charges may force out US Air's 5 flights each day, but until the City demonstrates the countervailing benefits to the City in real dollars of increased business why should New Haven taxpayers go on paying for the 200 passengers each day who fly US Air?

WE also propose that Tweed raise fees on private operators so they too pay their way. The Executive Director and others who have testified on this subject wants us to believe that a private plane owner --who owns and operates a private plane precisely so he/she can save precious time in getting to where they are going -- will desert our very own Tweed and elect to land their planes at Oxford/Waterbury, rent a car from there and drive an hour each way to get to Yale New Haven, Pilot Pen or their grandson's graduation?? Or to deliver a critical liver or heart, etc., to Yale New Haven?? And miss the whole point of the exercise -- to save time and to gain the psychic rewards of private ownership. What use is a private plane if it's owner cannot show it off to their less fortunate class mates??!!

It is precisely this mindset and the hubris that New Haven can afford it all, no matter it's financial straits, that makes the City reluctant to run the airport as a normal business that must pay it's way. They do this confident in the knowledge that they can keep coming to the City for more subsidies, which the City fathers will continue to pay even as they decry the impoverished conditions of the City's finances. Tweed is a subsidy guzzler.

3. NHCAN requested of the City Transportation department a basic statement of revenues and expenses by "line of business". A "line of busines" may be commercial aviation or general aviation, with information as to how much each line contributes to revenues and costs for parking, landing fees, fuel sales, hangar rentals, etc.

We have heard nothing back. Is this because the City does not maintain such information? Or does not wish to share it? Even my neighborhood Joe's hot dog stand can tell provide information on profits by "line of business" -- hot dogs, hamburgers, drinks, Masale Dosai, etc.

4. We have proposed -- once we know the revenues and costs by line of business -- that the airport raise landing fees on private planes to whatever it takes to breakeven. Landing fees on private planes of around $50 will raise some $2 million plus. Yes, we may lose some business -- those penny pinching plane pikers -- but that would be better than continuing to lose money on each landing. (How's that for alliteration?? Even better than "An Austrian Army awfully Arrayed, Boldly By Battery beseiged Belgrade, etc...)

5. On that note, I shall rest.

Harry

Posted by: Tim Holahan | February 16, 2009 10:13 AM

Thanks to Len Honeyman and the Independent for this excellent, detailed coverage of an important issue.

I want to respond to a few points made by others in the article:

No one wants Tweed to close. No one wants the Authority to fail. What critics of the subsidy (like me) argue is that the beneficiaries of Tweed should pay for it, rather than the citizens of New Haven alone. Two groups benefit from Tweed: private plane owners and the surrounding towns. The first group pays too little for Tweed, and the second group nothing at all. This is not acceptable, yet it doesn't seem like an urgent priority with New Haven's elected officials to change the situation.

The city's "Time Is Now" plan is not a plan to get Tweed off New Haven's books. It's a plan to maintain the status quo, based on the expectation Tweed can be self-sufficient in three years. In the meantime, the only hope is that we can get the state to subsidize the airport's entire operating loss. Given that Governor Rell has cut the state subsidy to $0 in her proposed budget, this seems like a long shot. Meantime, what is being done to reach out to neighboring towns to convince them to help support Tweed? "A direct formal request should be made" says an alderman. Formality won't get the job done, nor will "should". This will take active diplomacy and coalition-building, skills that seem to be in short supply at 165 Church.

Tim Larson says that Oxford-Waterbury "can" charge higher fees. What evidence does he have to support this? There's no reason that Tweed can't raise its fees to make its primary customers, wealthy private plane owners, bear more of the operating cost of the airport. Many private planes coming into Tweed are coming for Yale-related reasons. They're not going to fly into Waterbury if you charge $50 more for a landing fee, let alone $10. Meantime, we charge $5.50 less than Waterbury for a small plane landing.

Oxford-Waterbury hosts 250 planes to Tweed's 60 (Tweed could host more but the $1,200/month heated hangar is full). They have five full-time staff. Tweed has more than three times as many. Oxford-Waterbury is maintained to the same commercial standards as Tweed, even though they currently don't host commercial flights.

Again, please call your alderperson and let them know what you think about this issue, and don't let them tell you that it's a simple choice between supporting Tweed and closing it. If you don't have their contact info, you can get it here:

http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/aldermen/index.asp

Posted by: City Hall Watch | February 16, 2009 10:54 AM

The operating plan for Tweed is a dependency plan and will never result in break even or god forbid, a profitable airport. The operating subsidy from New Haven taxpayers is only half the real subsidy - there is a capital contribution too of another half million or so. The whole purpose of setting up this authority was to move a city department off the backs of taxpayers. While it somewhat lowered our contribution, it has become the kid that never leaves home because it is too comfortable. It is long past time for a real plan of independence. Since it refuses to do so on its own, there should be no more money, especially unbudgeted funds in a city budget year that all these months after approval, is still unbalanced and operating in the red.

Posted by: Hey Tim | February 16, 2009 10:58 AM

Mr Holahan,

Is it really appropriate for you to advocate here in the NHI? You sat on this commission. Did you think it was unfair to you or that your views were not heard or that the meetings were held in secret?

If not, then why are you undermining the consensus recommendations of the group? Was there not a way for you to express your concerns -- no place for a minority report?

Seems like you are one who does not play well with others and is not ready for the prime time. Maybe you should remain a commenter in the NHI and not join the actual processes of trying to find a solution.

One additional question (actually several related ones) that I was not sure of from the article. Did you folks consider the fees made from fuel sales? The 2.50 for landing does seem too low but is it meaningful in establishing income? It's hard to see anyone leaving at double or triple that price. But realistically, how much money does this fee generate? Is Tweed making 250,000 from this fee or 20,000 or $1 million and could it be making 500,000, 40,000 or $2 million?

Did the "blue ribbon panel" ASK the small plane owners how much they would be willing to pay? That seems like a pretty quick way to figure this out. And further, was there any question to plane owners about why they don't choose Tweed? Is it because of the lack of hangers? Could hangers be built for a reasonable amount such that they pay for themselves? Is there sufficient demand?

Sounds like the "blue ribbon panel," yourself included, started with presumptions about the airport and did little additional thinking and research.

And finally, why do you and everyone else talk about the commercial service? Isn't this the part of the airport THAT MAKES MONEY? Because that's who uses the fee generating services (parking, leases, rental cars, etc.)? And that's what makes the federal government willing to spend big money at the airport. (I know others think it's wrong to get 10s of millions of dollars in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars but compared to what?)

Sounds like a big waste of time. Can we get some people who are trying to make the airport succeed to do a thorough analysis and have them come back with a PLAN, not more of the same arguments on either side. We need an airport -- the airport costs too much -- New Haven is paying for the region -- it's getting old. Maybe such an independent analysis costs a couple hundred thousand dollars but that pales in comparison to the ongoing costs of this airport. Real experts, not ones trying to defeat or justify the city's contribution.

If we could make more money on the small planes, then how much more could we make? It's the kind of question I (and millions of others) answer in my business everyday and I don't guess at it. What should the cost of a widget, service or landing fee be? I talk to my customers. Are they willing to pay more to not have the airport close? If so, how much more?

And I ask those people who are not my customers, why not? Could we get more small planes by building hangers? Could we get more small planes by offering some additional services unique to planes? I mean this is not rocket science -- unless you want to do nothing, close the airport or maintain the costly status quo. Seems like the blue ribbon panel was drawn only from those categories.

Posted by: Question for the Don't Tax Me Crue | February 16, 2009 11:14 AM

I never understand your position. Answer these questions:

Do you believe the airport should close?

Because it seems like cutting the funding will cause the money making parts of the airport to end. So then there will be no revenue to keep the rest of the airport open so it closes. Pretty simple so be honest about it.

If you close the airport will the city no longer have to pay to maintain the land?

Forget for a moment whether the city will have to pay back the federal grants. Won't the city have to actually have people working for it to maintain the property or would you just let it become an overgrown no-man's land? What does it cost to maintain a park of the same size? Is this dramatically different than the Tweed subsidy in size?

Would you try to sell off this big part of the East Shore and East Haven to a developer (the only way this would stop being a money loser)?

There would certainly be no way the locals would allow this to happen. They fight against an airport which was there before they got there. You think they would allow a big development of housing, offices or retail to get built? Their claims about wetlands actually would be defensible in the face of more than two runways but instead dozens of new roads, runoff, and congestion.

Why do you focus on a fixed cost grant that is relatively small when the costs driving the city budget and thus your increased tax burden are not fixed (that's why your taxes go up)?

Health care, wages and the state's unwillingness to fully and fairly fund PILOT drive the city's budget woes and account (along with pension liabilities) for the city's yearly budget woes. If you gut Tweed, you not only don't solve this year's problem but within a year or two the impact would be irrelevant, even if you assume that it would cost nothing to the city after the airport closes.

Tweed might be an easy target but it seems like more enlightened anti-tax strategies would not focus on it for any length of time.

Posted by: hdavid | February 16, 2009 11:44 AM

I endorse most of Mr. Holahan's, with just a little change in emphasis.

"The only hope is that we can get the state to subsidize the airport's entire operating loss. Given that Governor Rell has cut the state subsidy to $0 in her proposed budget, this seems like a long shot. Meantime, what is being done to reach out to neighboring towns to convince them to help support Tweed" says Tim Holahan.

With all due respect and much deference, I ask "Why on earth would neighboring towns, or the State of CT want to pick up the tab for this white elephant?" There is a reason no one wants to bail out our fair City's airport dreams. They don't see the point in throwing more good money after bad. And no one in their right minds, and with freedom to choose, would want to send their taxpayers dollars to continue a fruitless subsidy such as this when Tweed management continues to entertain grandiose deliriums of expansion even as they go on spending tax dollars on a failing enterprise.

No one, not even another tax levying entity such as the STate, will want this subsidy guzzler without first seeing evidence of viability. And no such evidence is forthcoming. On the contrary, marketing monies and campaigns (The "Time is Now" sounds right but not for what they think it is time for) and continued "improvements" for safety and expansion to allow for bigger planes to land etc., demonstrate that the Authority's vision is contrary to what is ultimately necessary to make the airport viable -- reducing costs and raising revenues.

And as long as our City fathers continue to endorse such delusions, year after year, what will force the Authority to face cold reality?? All this year's soul-searching is going to do is to set us up for next years identical debate, the same debate we have had for years. I wonder what the Mayor will propose for the 2009-10 budget which is due later this month?? Will we assume that the State does not really mean to cut their subsidy, will relent and open the subsidy taps again?

Will there be no end? How long, oh lord must we suffer this travail?? (Excuse this rhetorical waxing -- I seek my jollies where I find it)

And that is the opinion of His Coolness.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | February 16, 2009 12:39 PM

What is an "alderperson?" A human tree?

Alderman is the correct word. And there is no such word -- outside of the PC universe -- as chairperson, congressperson, repairperson, garbageperson and all of those other ridiculous bastardizations of the English language.

Posted by: More from Alphonse | February 16, 2009 1:41 PM

Alphonse,

I just want to know when you get in your time machine every morning to return to the 1950s whether this also reduces wrinkles due to age.

Because if it does then you might actually have something to contribute to New Haven and the rest of the people of this nation.

If not, well then not so much.

Let me help you for future reference: chair, member of congress, firefighter, etc. Though the use of Alder does seem out of place since that means a shrub (unless one's intent is to bastardize -- that is to debase -- members of the Board of Aldermen).

Posted by: Ken Joyner | February 16, 2009 2:00 PM

The city administration, through Alderman Sandman, argues "that the airport is a commercial airline facility and not just a general-aviation airstrip puts it into another category as far as the need for more staff and more money is concerned" said Beaver Hill Alderman Mordechai Sandman.

If this is so... then simply charge the rates and fees as does other commercial airports in the country.

I had the opportunity to not only testify against increasing the board approved decrease in the subsidy, I also provide a recommendation for the identification and reallocation of monies from an existing line item to fund Tweed should all else fail.

In the Mayor's revised budget of May 2009, he recommended, on page eight of that document, to reduce development subsidies by $550K. This included $150K from Market New Haven. In fact, the reduction from Market New Haven is not reflected in the approved budget revision.
Here-in lies monies the Mayor has previously identified as expendable, and can now be transferred to Tweed.

If the Administration and Sandman see the support of business as paramount, apparently only with respect to Tweed, then they would be hard pressed to explain how they saw it fitting to completely eliminate the city's small business initiative, saving only 166K, in spite of the fact that more than fifty beneficiaries of the program showed up to testify in favor of it's continued existence.

No beneficiaries of Tweed bothered to show at the last public hearing.

Along with Mr. Doyens, we were the only two citizens to appear in front of the committee to testify. Many of you here provide defacto testimony, which is not part of the record. I urge you all to attend these meetings in the future so as to receive first hand information on the pros and cons of this, and many more important issues which impact Tweed, the General fund budget generally, and the total budget particularily.

Your attendance is more valued in person, than hearing about this issue through a third party carrier such as the news media.

Lets not get lost in this debate about $160K, inappropriately submitted to the Board of finance last month. This is but one of the important spending decisions being made in your absence everyday at City Hall.

Posted by: Tim Holahan | February 16, 2009 2:23 PM

Good debate. I'll try to concisely respond to some of the questions directed to me:

Is it appropriate for me to comment here?

I think so. I voted for the Panel's recommendations, and I support them. I see this commentary as a continuation of a public conversation about what's best for New Haven. Alderfolk frequently chime in here, why shouldn't panelists? In matters of free speech, it seems to me that the burden is not on the speaker to establish their right to speak.

Did we consider fees from fuel sales?

Yes. Tweed's fuel flowage fee is $0.10 per gallon. Waterbury's is $0.12, and may go up soon. If Tweed raised its fee by $0.05, that would have generated more than $28K during 2008 (based on sales of 568,064 gallons). In a better year, that number would be significantly higher. This is one example of the many operating fees that could be increased slightly to bring in sorely-needed revenue. There are lots of other such fees: ramp fees, tie-down fees, hangar rents, etc.

How much money does the landing fee generate?

I can't provide exact figures on this, because we don't have the data broken out by plane size, but there were 39,428 general aviation "movements" in 2008, a very slow year (there were 68,314 in 2005). Let's assume half of those were landings (19,714). If we bumped up all landing fees by $10, that would generate $197,140, and would have no impact on commercial aviation.

Did the panel ask private plane owners how much they would be willing to pay?

No. Harry David assisted the panel by doing some research into the fixed and variable costs of private plane ownership. Harry's research suggested that landing fees are not a significant part of the ownership costs of a private plane.

Was there any question to plane owners about why they don't choose Tweed? Is it because of the lack of hangars? Could hangars be built for a reasonable amount such that they pay for themselves? Is there sufficient demand?

All good questions. I did the research I could in the volunteer time I had available. Given that you can't get a $1,200/month heated hangar spot at Tweed if you want one, I'd guess that there is at least some more demand than Tweed is meeting. Robinson Aviation, the GA fixed-base operation at Tweed, has a long-term contract on the site. They may be considering another hangar, but didn't tell me so.

Why do you talk about the commercial service? Isn't this the part that makes money?

Yes, commercial has nice concession revenues associated with it. I haven't heard anyone participating in the debate advocate placing further financial burdens on the commercial side. I'm advocating bumping up the fees on general aviation. GA could make significantly more money than it does. (By the way, when the Authority recently needed funds for a capital project, they had no problem getting FAA authorization for a $4.50 fee on each commercial ticket to provide the money.)

Do you believe the airport should close?

No. Nor the Authority. I thought I made that clear in my earlier comment.

Why do you focus on a fixed cost grant that is relatively small when the costs driving the city budget and thus your increased tax burden are not fixed (that's why your taxes go up)?

Good question. While I recognize that the $160K, and even the whole Tweed subsidy, is relatively small compared with the larger numbers involved in the New Haven budget, I feel that the issue touches on some key concerns that I and other good government advocates have:

* the need for the city to focus on core services rather than pet projects
* the need for fiscal responsibility
* the need for transparency and accountability
* the need for more strategic and diplomatic relationships with neighboring towns and Hartford

For these reasons, I think it's important that we have a healthy public debate on the topic.

I utterly reject the "Don't Tax Me" epithet. I have no problem paying plenty of taxes when my dollars are responsibly managed. As I've said elsewhere, New Haven's money should be going to Early Reading Success programs or to overflow homeless shelters (both cut in the past year), not to inefficiently-managed infrastructure that's a benefit to the suburbs as much or more than it is to us.

Posted by: City Hall Watch | February 16, 2009 7:32 PM

Question for the Don't Tax Me Crue:

Nobody wants the airport closed, including me. That's a strawman argument that's not rooted in reality. I don't want my tax dollars subsidizing it when it can pay for itself. Neighboring towns need to ante up their share; and there should be user fees levied to pay the balance. The math on it is not that complicated. While the entire subsidy of $1 million a year may seem small, it is this million dollars together with all the other millions of dollars in waste that adds up to huge increases in our property taxes.

It's the double dipper who collects another $30K; it's paying for two people in the magnet school coordinator position; it's leaving the windows open during the winter at W.C. High School; it's having 7 assistant principals at W.C. and multiples at other high schools as well; it's not bidding out the insurance in more than a decade; not having the same insurance coverage for every union...the list goes on and on. Individual line items don't account for much..taken together they equal a 15% property tax hike that I'm not willing to pay. I'm sick and tired of robbing from my children and family to pay for this level of incompetence or this "vision" of the city.

Posted by: TrueBlueCT | February 16, 2009 7:41 PM

I've never understood why New Haven hasn't joined forces with Bridgeport to create one, VIABLE, airport to support both cities. (and hasn't Tweed demonstrated itself to be anything but viable over the years?)

To me, the cooperative development of Sikorsky Memorial field, should be a no-brainer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_Memorial_Airport

Just 19 miles away in Stratford, regional service at Sikorsky could provide for New Haven, the Naugutuck valley, and a big chunk of Fairfield County. And I'd bet given that draw, such a venture would actually be successful.

fwiw.

Posted by: Ed Padmoor | February 16, 2009 8:29 PM

Thanks to you all for your input. There is good data here. Unfortunately I don't think it will get any attention. Tweeds fate will not be determined on financial or cost benefit facts. Its survival will be determined by Three Percent Johnnys hubris. The city has lost all its sports franchises and its colliseum and all its industry since he became mayor. The airport is the only thing that's still there.

Posted by: downtown | February 17, 2009 9:31 AM

Ed Padmoor: stand up and fight for your democracy. Get your voice heard.

http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/aldermen/index.asp

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight."

Posted by: Hey Tim | February 17, 2009 9:32 AM

Thanks for your thoughtful responses.

Seems like someone should set new fee structures. Good work on bringing that front and center.

Seems like a serious listening session should be had with Tweed's customers to see what they would pay and what services they need.

Seems like people (small plane owners) not using Tweed on the non-commercial side should be asked why not.

You are wrong that the discussion does not always center around commercial aviation, despite that it's the part of Tweed that brings in the money. Members of the aldermen, the people who give testimony, and the commenters on this site all repeatedly say that we should let the commercial service go. Do every one of the anti-tax folks a favor and end that misconception forever. The higher number of staff address the commercial service so cutting more staff would end commercial service and only leave the money losing private plane service.

It's long past time that the Authority, the Aldermen and the people who talk incessantly about Tweed with little information focus on where there is growth opportunity and little thought given to how to make money -- the private side of the airport which accounts for the majority of airport usage.

And please do away with the strawman that other towns should pay for the airport -- that won't happen. It is a lie to ensure the airport's closure. Many towns around New Haven lack sidewalks, paid fire departments, garbage pickup and even sewer systems. They are towns in name only and exist only to be certain their children don't have to attend diverse public schools (New Haven, Hamden and West Haven excluded). The people these towns don't care if the "region" is successful. Only people who live in New Haven have such progressive regionalism ideas.

Posted by: The Count | February 17, 2009 12:09 PM

Tweed can pay for itself by increasing its passenger boardings. Simple enough. However, one airline (and a commuter airline at that) is not going to appeal to a flying public used to jet service and nonstop flights. Recent jet service here wasn't patronized as well as it should have been in part because the current navigational impediments are still there (trees, houses, etc.).
If there are no obstructions to the approaches to it, runway 2/20 need not expand. As it stands, you have a 5,600-foot runway with 5,200 actual usable feet. Not the inducement for a JetBlue or an Airtran to come here knowing their flights may be diverted to another airport come foul weather.
Improve the airport on a par with Orange County, California's John Wayne Airport, then let the airlines put in flights at more desirable times. United and Comair both made the mistake of their first inbounds arriving at Tweed in the early afternoon. This caused visiting businessmen to split their tickets, flying to White Plains or Bradley in the morning, renting s car to drive to New Haven, then flying out of New Haven in the late afternoon. Not very efficient. I see no one blaming East Haven's intransigence on this, especially at a time when Gov. Rell is pushing for "regionalism," coupled with East Haven State Rep. Mike Lawlor's appointment to the General Assembly's Transportation Committee. And while "The Time Is Now" is very commendable in its overtures to East Haven, the Airport Authority had better have the stick on stanby should the carrot fail. The FAA paid Tweed's legal fees before. We may need their help again. And the State of Connecticut was able to purchase 80+ properties in preparaton of the Pearl Harbor Bridge project. Why can't they purhase several properties on both ends of 2/20?

Posted by: strangerthanfiction | February 18, 2009 12:20 AM

Hate to say it, but Tweed is like the Coliseum. We don't do it well, others do it better and it's just going to be good money after bad. On the other hand, we do trains very well -- we're a central hub of train connections and highways. We need light rail across town that hooks up to a centrally located train station. The trains can shoot you up to Bradley or out to the NYC airports. Let's focus on what New Haven excels at and cast off these perennial losers.

Posted by: Bruce | February 18, 2009 10:23 AM

Alphonse,

Language is alive. Just as Ye Olde English morphed into what you speak today, our modern language is constantly changing to adapt new usages and new terms. Feel free to call it a bastardization if you like, but once a word gets used often enough it becomes an "official" part of the English language. Think about that next time you step into your horse-less carriage or type an email into your Turing machine. Change is good.

Posted by: robn | February 18, 2009 1:07 PM

STF,

Yes!

BRUCE,

LOL...you're killing me baby.