Tweed Makes New Moves To Pursue Expansion

Christopher Peak PhotoTwo moves taken Wednesday by airport authorities are aimed at trying again to expand Tweed-New Haven Airport’s runway to attract more airline flights.

The first move involved votes by the boards of the Connecticut Airport Authority (which oversees Bradley) and Tweed’s Airport Authority to “explore a deeper partnership.”  Both CAA and the Tweed Airport Authority were created by state statute to promote air travel.

The partnership would begin with a “working group” to explore the idea and to combine forces to push state legislators this year to support improvements at Tweed, according to a press release issued Wednesday evening by New Haven City Hall.

The second move involved a decision by Mayor Toni Harp to rip up a 2009 agreement with the town of East Haven (on which some of the airport land sits, and which has opposed expansion) in order to seek state money to expand the runway, an alleged prerequisite to luring new airline service. The New Haven Register’s Mark Zaretsky covered the Tweed vote and the background about the agreement in this article.

Morris Cove airport expansion opponent Sean O’Brien called it “a show of hubris for Mayor Harp to wake up one morning and decide she is not bound by the 2009 agreement.” Harp argued that the state, a party to the 2009 agreement, hadn’t lived up to its obligations, so New Haven is no longer bound by it.

O’Brien told the Independent neighbors will continue fighting airport expansion and “not be bought out.” Neighborhood opponents clashed in Hartford and New Haven hearings last year over New Haven political and business leaders’ attempts to win state approval for airport expansion.

O’Brien also called the possible Tweed-CAA partnership and potential merger “an admission of failure.”

“Tweed is not viable as an independent airport,” he argued, citing persistent deficits.

Following is the text of the city press release announcing the CAA-Tweed plans:

City of New Haven Statement Concerning Tweed New Haven Airport and new working group established to explore the feasibility of a CAA-Tweed partnership

New Haven – Earlier today the Connecticut Airport Authority (“CAA”) approved a process to explore a deeper partnership between CAA and the Tweed Airport Authority. Both authorities were established by state statute in order to advance commercial and general aviation travel in the State of Connecticut.

Today’s resolution calls for the establishment of a working group to explore the feasibility of a CAA-Tweed partnership. Driven by the need for infrastructure improvements at Tweed, along with enhanced commercial air service in New Haven, the working group will study how best to coordinate efforts this legislative session to obtain funds for capital improvements, such as enhancing the main runway and continuing to deliver benefits to residents of the surrounding neighborhood. All these efforts are designed to reach a consensus of all community stakeholders.

The working group’s first task would be to understand the needs of the New Haven business community. The group would then develop a strategy for coordinating efforts during the legislative session to further advance the Tweed development initiative.

“This is a positive sign that state and local leaders are moving toward consensus about the overall importance of Tweed and the need to support the greater New Haven business community with commercial air service,” said New Haven Mayor Toni N. Harp. “In the coming months, my administration looks forward to this important dialogue. We all agree a viable commercial airport will help attract and retain world class talent and to grow as a city and as a region.”

“The CAA’s interest in Tweed is indicative of the central role that New Haven plays in driving the economic engine in Connecticut. We look forward to embarking on the next chapter of Tweed’s redevelopment with CAA,” said Michael Piscitelli, City of New Haven interim economic development administrator. “It is in the collective interest of the City, State, and business community that Tweed’s capital improvements and air service development program be overseen by a measured and balanced group of state and local leadership. Today’s actions are the kind of positive collaboration that promises to move New Haven and Connecticut forward.”

The Greater New Haven Region is one of the most underserved air-travel markets in the country. More than 4 million passengers live closer to Tweed-New Haven Regional Airport than any other airport. Half of the air travelers in the region fly out of New York City or New Jersey area airports to travel by air and 38% go to Bradley. These passengers generate much needed tax revenues that could be kept in the State of Connecticut rather than leaking to neighboring states.

The new jet service to Charlotte, North Carolina and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania clearly demonstrates American’s confidence in the greater New Haven market, but there is still more work to be done to strengthen Tweed and make it the economic engine that our region so desperately needs.  In no uncertain terms, Tweed’s growth is critical to helping businesses stay in Connecticut and to helping attract new businesses from outside of Connecticut.

Tweed-New Haven Regional Airport (airport booking code HVN) is located just 15 minutes from Downtown New Haven. With free Wi-Fi, no waiting, no lines, no hassle and a matter of minutes between parking in front of the terminal and reaching the gate, Tweed is Southern Connecticut’s preferred airport. For more information visit

Tags: ,

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry


posted by: ebw1957 on January 17, 2019  9:48am

I paid $3 to park for 15-20 or so minutes while dropping off my daughter last Friday, while news vehicles from 4 TV stations parked in the ‘no parking’ area along the fence for free.

If I parked there a police officers would have sent me on my way. In my time attending anything related to work that required a toll, meter or parking garage, I paid my way.  Why do they get free?They were there to do their job- why does the state of CT eat the parking fee?

posted by: ItsGettingBetter on January 17, 2019  10:10am

Sean O needs to have a deep think about the levels of NIMBYism that pumps through his veins. The potential economic impact on the region matched with other recent successes would be beneficial to too many people. Get out of the way Sean.

posted by: Patricia Kane on January 17, 2019  10:37am

” Harp argued that the state, a party to the 2009 agreement, hadn’t lived up to its obligations, so New Haven is no longer bound by it.”
  The Mayor should consult with the Office of Corporation Counsel on her legal conclusion.
  The remedy should be an action for breach of contract, but this is political posturing, so don’t look for logic.
  Bradley is a lovely airport and an easy drive.
  Why the drama to build up Tweed. Perhaps it should be shut down completely.
  It doesn’t pay its way.
  It’s a source of pollution.
  It disturbs the beautiful Quinnipiac River with its flights over the river and Fair Haven Heights.
  Its’ parking is crazy expensive.
  Here we go again.

posted by: anonymous on January 17, 2019  10:58am

“Bradley is a lovely airport and an easy drive.”

Not so at all.  While it’s fine for a retired person visiting grandkids in Arizona, it is not an option for business travel. Conferences in New Haven are generally not an option

New Haven is competing against Midtown Manhattan, Boston, Portland, DC, Austin, and similar cities. 

From the downtowns of those cities, the time to get to the airport at that time averages about 13 minutes, and ranges from 8 minutes to 22 minutes. 

Mid-day, Bradley is an hour drive (it can be much worse at rush hour, like coming back on a Thursday evening). 

That’s one reason why those areas are growing while New Haven residents lose out on thousands of well-paying new jobs.

posted by: Pedro Soto on January 17, 2019  11:08am

This is great news. I hope that eventually Bradley and Tweed eventuallly are governed under the same authority. Managing them together would save and share costs, as well as would allow the airlines to work with one authority for two airports instead of the two separate bodies.

People forget that tweed once had far greater service than it even will be projected to grow to. This level of a few flights per day is the aberration not the norm.

posted by: r3alist on January 17, 2019  11:35am

Ms. Kane, I totally agree with your thoughts on legality. I will remind you, however, that the airport serves the business, educational, and health sectors of the region through its corporate traffic. Recently there has been a huge influx of Life Saving flights from both the New England Organ Bank as well as radioactive, time-sensitive cancer medicine flights.
Those communities require suitable air access. No airport, no YNHH in the sense that you see it now. Kiss Yale goodbye, too. I assure you Tweed does not pollute the Quinnipiac River. And if you must know, Bradley’s Standard Approach, which is used for ALL arriving aircraft, sends them over Madison at 10,000 feet, descending to 5,000 feet over West Hartford, crossing directly over the river. Maybe those are the planes to which you refer.
Tweed is a necessity and should be viewed as a benefit, not a hindrance. That’s typical Connecticut mentality, and it’s the plague that has driven everyone from this state.
ebw1957, I hear there is a proposal to allow 30 minute free parking. That should calm you.
Sean O, you’re everything wrong with CT. When did you buy your house again? Goodbye.

posted by: Noteworthy on January 17, 2019  11:47am

Harp Arrogance Reaches New High Notes:

1. With no discussion with alders, the public or even with the people most affected by Tweed - Harp shreds her end of the agreement. I’m not even sure that’s legal but the courts will decide. Again.

2. This statement is patently untrue: “More than 4 million passengers live closer to Tweed-New Haven Regional Airport than any other airport.” Why lie?

3. Any expansion of paving which allegedly is needed to fly larger jets must include a community benefits package. Harp refuses to craft one - has never crafted one and I would argue, she hasn’t lived up to the agreement herself.

4. But Harp often doesn’t live up to her rhetoric, promises or agreements. Remember he claims of collaboration? A kinder, gentler administration? Balanced budgets? None of it true or our reality.

5. Tweed is a loser. It’s chronic over-promise, under-delivery of new airlines, better prices and more choices never comes into reality. It’s been a very expensive dependent of New Haven taxpayers for years.

6. Tweed is essentially a private airport. They are more private plane landings than commercial and passenger counts are basically flat.

7. 99% of New Haveners get zero benefit from Tweed - and estimates of economic value are notoriously overstated. Don’t believe any of that crap. They are not based on science or reality. It’s used as a promotion tool.

8. One would expect our mayor to stand up for us. This decision and action is Mayor Harp standing up for the suburbs and the elites. But as the last tax increase shows - there are 30 million examples of how much she doesn’t care about us.

posted by: r3alist on January 17, 2019  12:00pm

Noteworthy: Good points, but I believe there were commissioned studies on Tweed’s catchment area - that’s how many folks live nearby. Why is it hard to believe only 4 million people live closer to Tweed than BDL or HPN? New Haven is a pretty populated county.

Tweed may lose money but that’s only because there is less than zero accountability for how its management spends money. Ask someone through FOIA to look at their books. I’m sure it would be juicy.

There are other “private” airports in CT that do just fine. By the way, I think you mean “corporate.” Because “private” airports can’t be used by the public.

If your issues are with politics, then I’d suggest you vote those folks out. Maybe you should run for office so you can see the benefits for yourself.

posted by: Ryn111 on January 17, 2019  12:07pm

Patricia , it is a lovely drive to Albany too….

posted by: Badger21 on January 17, 2019  12:20pm

Can’t just ignore this one.

I am seeing all the claims here and elsewhere that Mayor Harp’s cancellation of the MOA violates the law one way or another. Yet everyone seems so quick to quote the 2009 MOA whenever it suits them. As much of a trash mistake that MOA was, it does have a very important part, which I will quote DIRECTLY below. Observe:


This agreement shall become effective immediately upon execution by the City and the Town. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement may be terminated by mutual written agreement of the City and the Town or this Agreement may be terminated by written notice by either the City or the Town in the vent (a) The Tweed new Haven Airport Authority fails to endorse this Agreement within 30 days of execution; (b) the State of Connecticut Department of Transportation fails to furnish a determination authorizing removal of obstructions identified in the Aeronautical Study within 60 days of execution; or (c) the State of Connecticut fails to enact the Legislative Initiatives contained in Section III of this Agreement in the 2009 Legislative Session.”

If memory serves correctly, according to Section III. Legislative Initiatives, number 2 in there was the appropriation of $2.0 million in FY 2009-10 and $2.0 million in FY 2010-11 for operating costs of the Authority.

That never happened.

Ergo, Mayor Harp is well within her right to simply sign a short letter cancelling the entire MOA.

The law works both ways. Looking at you, Noteworthy. Take that one down.

#GetOutOfTheWaySean (oh god, this is my new favorite quote in this whole comment section. Thank you whoever came up with that.)

posted by: steve on January 17, 2019  1:27pm

Quote Noteworthy, “Tweed is essentially a private airport. They are more private plane landings than commercial and passenger counts are basically flat.” 1.Many airports have more private plane movements and Tweed is no different. ” 99% of New Haveners get zero benefit from Tweed”. 2.There are thousands who yearly benefit from Tweed, passengers, jobs with the airlines, mechanics for the private planes, TSA employees, etc. “Tweed is a loser. It’s chronic over-promise, under-delivery of new airlines”.3.Kind of hard to attract airlines with a runway that won’t permit them to operate flights to distant hubs and with full loads. “passenger counts are basically flat”. 4. 2018 passenger count will be much higher than 2017 due to the jet service by American airlines and I am sure many New Haveners are among using the flights. Your postings are just full of anger and bitterness. Since the 70’s,Tweed’s runway has remained the same and that caused Eastern, United and Delta airlines to end service. Northwest and Southwest airlines surveyed Tweed in the past and it was the limited runway that killed those plans. Allegiant airlines has already said they would offer flights to Florida pending the runway being upgraded. Other airlines would do the same when the runway is upgraded. Driving up to almost Massachusetts to catch a flight is not what I would call a nearby airport and it works a hardship on those who need to dropped off or picked up. The metro New Haven can support more service and end the dependence on Bradley field. More passengers mean more income for the airport, more travelers money spent locally and more new jobs.

posted by: Noteworthy on January 17, 2019  1:43pm

r3alist - Four million people don’t live in all of Connecticut. Once you’re South of Bridgeport - it’s as close to drive to HPN as it is Tweed. The further South you go, it’s closer to drive to Newark, LaGuardia or HPN than Tweed. Finding the break even point between Tweed and Bradley - is a no brainer - and from up 95 way - split the difference between TF Green and Tweed. It is highly doubtful there are 4 million people in that catchment area. Maybe, there’s 1.5 million in CT - where’s the rest? RI? lol. As I noted, that study, paid for by Tweed, is BS.

Private Airport - It operates that way and has greater benefit for private planes and those affording expensive flights out of Tweed than the general public.

Badger: The lawyers will sort it out but more importantly, so will taxpayers and voters. This is not even a political question - it’s common sense and fair play issue. New Haven taxpayers fund that airport. We are in debt because of that airport. One would think that a mayor who is supposed to make sure her own people are taken care of would give a damn about that especially since I can guarantee her next budget will have another million dollars in debt and cash for this loser. 

Steve: I’m neither angry or bitter. I don’t live near the airport. I do live in New Haven and my tax dollars for the last 15 years have supported this loser while the airport authority has squandered money and good will with empty promises and unfulfilled agreements. What I can’t abide - is lying authority members who claim a bigger catchment area than is remotely rational, claims of jobs and economic benefits are chronically oversold and politicians who make agreements and then move to break them in the next breath. TSA agents? Gate agents? Fuel? Give me a break. That’s peanuts. You could shut Tweed down for commercial traffic and I’d make a bet we wouldn’t miss a beat of economic impact.

posted by: steve on January 17, 2019  2:15pm

Quote Patricia Kane, ” Bradley is a lovely airport and an easy drive”. 1. Not as close or easy as Tweed. “Why the drama to build up Tweed. Perhaps it should be shut down completely.
  It doesn’t pay its way”. 2.If you knew the operational needs of aircraft, you would not have made that unfounded statement. To pay its own way, it needs to offer more flights to increase its income that is derived by fees on airline tickets, landing fees on aircraft, ticket counter rentals, fuel taxes, etc. ” It disturbs the beautiful Quinnipiac River with its flights over the river and Fair Haven Heights.” 3. Many planes land by flying over long island sound, not the beautiful Quinnipiac River . ” It’s a source of pollution.” 4. This is a sweeping generalization, Tweed is a low volume airport, no significant pollution from the airport and if Tweed pollutes, how much does Bradley pollute being many times larger?

posted by: Bill Saunders on January 17, 2019  2:44pm

Providence has a nice Airport too, and will be a nice drive along the new Toll Road!

posted by: AnHVNpilot on January 17, 2019  2:46pm


The 4 million passenger figure is from a market study and refers to “passengers” or “people” as a yearly figure of individual trips. It does not refer to population; in those terms, Tweed’s catchment area is still an impressive figure around 1.5 million. That figure doesn’t include several thousand college students at some of the nations leading universities. Tweed’s catchment area is on par or larger than many airports considered to be “mid-size”.

The airport is the reason we’re in debt? That’s hysterical! 1.5 million is a drop in the bucket in this state’s annual budget. Very few airports run profitably. Maybe we should just abandon air travel? Maybe let’s abandon trains and highways while we’re at it? The best way to let Tweed operate without a deficit is to let it grow modestly and safely accommodate the regional airline traffic that New Haven’s economy needs. Paved runway safety areas equal quieter, safer and more reliable operations with the current aircraft and destinations. It also would allow for limited service to other hubs and destination markets like Orlando to help bring in more revenue for the airport, fund more local jobs and put New Haven on the map for business. If the state and city want to reduce the airport’s dependence on subsidies, growth is the way to do so.

Airline passenger numbers are on the rise globally. Markets not even 1/10th the size of New Haven are seeing successful regional jet service and low cost carriers entering. Tweed is only sidelined by its crippling runway limitations. The very argument that Tweed is useless to those of us who lack private jets is an arguement for more air service in itself. Studies have shown that many buisiness jet flights are used to access markets with no or limited airline service. Communities much smaller than New Haven enjoy the benefits their airports bring them, why can’t we? Tweed won’t go anywhere if it loses airline service and it could cost more!

posted by: westville man on January 17, 2019  2:55pm

I’m guessing there’s no polluting by the cars driving to Bradley, Laguardia, Kennedy and White Plains…...

posted by: Sean O'Brien on January 17, 2019  3:02pm


> #GetOutOfTheWaySean (oh god, this is my new favorite quote in this whole comment section. Thank you whoever came up with that.)

Good luck with that :D

posted by: Sean O'Brien on January 17, 2019  3:10pm

1. The citizens of New Haven receive no quantifiable benefit from Tweed.
* The majority users of Tweed tend to fall into two categories:
-  Individual and corporate owners of private planes.
- Business travelers employed by suburban companies.
- Citizens of New Haven are unlikely to fall into either of those categories.

2. Tweed is unlikely to become self-sustaining any time soon.
* An industry expert estimates that Tweed would require 300,000-400,000 departing
commercial passengers annually to break even.
- The current figure is around 20,000.
- The ground transportation infrastructure around Tweed could not support that level
of traffic.
- The suburban neighborhoods around Tweed would not put up with that increase in
noise and disturbance.

3. There is no direct financial upside to Tweed.
* All profits generated by FAA-supported airports must be re-invested in the airports
themselves, so the city can never realize a profit from the airport.
- The town of East Haven receives all property tax revenue from the airport, since all
- Tweed-based planes are “tied down” or hangared in East Haven town limits.

4. Tweed represents a significant potential financial liability for New Haven.
* If US Airways leaves, the airport will lose considerable revenue generated by
commercial flights.
- Given the state of the economy and the finances of the carrier in question, it is
impossible to predict the likelihood of this event.
- If the airport is not maintained to FAA commercial aviation standards, the FAA
subsidy will decrease by approximately $900,000.
- The city will be obliged to repay millions of dollars worth of FAA grants if the airport
ceases operation altogether.

...and on, and on…

This CAA takeover of Tweed is the logical step, recommended many times before for fiscal austerity and (hopefully) sustainability.  Mayor Harp is clearly sick of this albatross on her neck.

posted by: Badger21 on January 17, 2019  3:42pm

@Sean O’Brien Heyooo! There you are. We’ve missed you! That quote is objectively funny in its simplicity, and you know it.

@Noteworthy: There is nothing for the lawyers to sort out with Harp’s withdrawal! The MOA made clear it was the City’s prerogative to cancel the MOA if any of the Section III stipulations were not met. Number two was not, ergo, it can be cancelled. Even the Judge in Hartford and the appellate judges in New York have asked why New Haven hadn’t simply cancelled the MOA before now.

You are sore that the City owns an airport, which you don’t want. Fair enough, you are entitled to your views. To sit here and act like it’s a drain on the economy (it’s not), or that it’s the reason New Haven has financial problems (not even close, do you even view the budgets?), or even claim as you have, “we are in debt because of that airport” only shows you have no grasp of fiscal realities for New Haven. I remember telling the gang a couple years ago to look. The airport’s share of New Haven’s budget is but a drop in the bucket compared to debt obligations alone. No one bothered to believe me then, even though the hard numbers are available on the city website for all to see.

You’re complaining about recently amounts of 350-450k for the airport, in the coming two years a couple million overall for major infrastructure improvements to aging facilities, but ignore the $61.4 million in debt obligations, massive overtime obligations in public safety, litigation over mismanagement and recent employee misconduct (Scott Lewis for those playing the home game) and combined with a CONTRACTING tax base (yep, all those companies leaving for greener pastures? Not because they don’t like the traffic lights) and you look a little stale sitting there claiming the airport is choking the financial life out of you and your City.

Wake up.

posted by: Sean O'Brien on January 17, 2019  3:48pm


> Heyooo! There you are. We’ve missed you!

I don’t go anywhere. That’s what irks you and the rest.

posted by: Pardee on January 17, 2019  5:03pm

I attended the East Shore Management Team the night the Mayor brought her dog and pony show to convince us that our taxes really weren’t that high, and we have it so much better than some of our neighbors in the surrounding towns. Of course, the airport came up. Mayor Harp made a brief statement that Alexion left because of Tweed. Her voice trailed off as she realized she was going down a slippery slope if she tried to pin Alexion’s move solely on the airport.

She was asked point blank if Alexion, in advance of deciding to locate in New Haven, inquired about the airport. Harp’s answer, “No.”  Another attendee asked if businesses looking to establish themselves in New Haven inquire about the airport. Another, “No.”  Incredulous, that same person repeated the question. For the third time, Mayor Harp’s answer was “No.”  So like many of the made-up “facts” about the airport, Tweed is not a top priority for companies when they look to establish their new businesses in New Haven. Apparently there are many other features that make New Haven attractive to new businesses.

posted by: UrbanPlanner on January 17, 2019  9:15pm

In the 2016 presidential election most of New Haven’s Wards voted around for Trump around 5-20% versus Hillary.

Ward 18, where Tweed airport is located, voted 44% for Trump, actually only 232 votes short of reaching majority for Trump…

I find this relevant to the conversation because clearly this ward has a different political outlook from the rest of New Haven, which likely explains their resistance and unity. However, when it comes to the resistance to the airport I find it hilarious because if Trump was Mayor he would immediately threaten eminent domain, and then expand the airport; or actually use eminent domain, expand the airport, and build a golf course #America #Buildthewall #FlyTweed #Golfcourse2020

Ward 18 has been extorting the Tweed debate for home improvements and has the audacity to come back and say we never received an adequate community benefits package. Shame on them. Should the city also gift BMWs to everyone that lives near the hospital?

Sean O - you never cease to amaze. Maybe you can help Trump build the wall or even bring coal mining jobs back? You have been effective politically despite any facts or reason. Do you even know what you are fighting for anymore? or why? It seems hard to believe that a 5-10% increase in air traffic and the corresponding 5-10% increase in car traffic and the extra few 2-minute intervals of ‘noise pollution’ are worth your effort. Let them pave it and if it fails you will have a win - win: you can brag about how right you were and the airport will effectively remain unchanged.

posted by: Leftoncharlie on January 17, 2019  11:59pm

After last May I can’t help but notice a bright future for this airport. I will refrain from mentioning recent good news for proponents. But a recent news story regarding the Boeing Corp. vs. Bombardier could be a game changer for the industry. Airbus A220 aircraft could be a game changer for smaller regional airports

posted by: Stylo on January 18, 2019  11:27am

Want New Haven to have significant economic growth and a varied private sector? Then you need a viable airport. Full stop. I travel for business a lot and I’m never more than 30 minutes from the airport wherever I go. There’s a reason for that. Bradley is not a solution.

posted by: Brian V on January 18, 2019  12:22pm

I love all the experts here. Lots of statements of increased business and the boon to the regional economy without any facts to back it up. Lots of fake numbers on 4 million potential customers and billions of dollars flowing into the New Haven county -all dreams and nothing more.
I suggest the CAA start working on the old Stratford airport. That spot that would be convenient to New Haven- only 15 minutes up 95 but also from Bridgeport.  The whole area is a ghost town and would make a much more convenient airport with twice the “catchment area ” of Tweed.
@Anom. -  13 to 22 minutes to get from Midtown Manhattan to any airport. Really? It can take 13 to 22 minutes to go one block in MManhattan-give me a break.
@r3alist- no Tweed, no YNHH….? oh please!
@steve- PK is correct it DOES NOT PAY ITS WAY.  Decades of promises that it will become independent and not a burden on taxpayers have fallen flat. enough is enough.

posted by: AnHVNpilot on January 18, 2019  1:34pm

@Brian V.

Maybe we’re not experts but what qualifies you to disqualify us?

The catchment area you feel deserves quotations is derived from official studies and measures the amount of residents closer to one airport than any other. The BDR area, not currently having commercial service falls under HVN’s catchment area. BDR’s catchement area is actually smaller being closer to HPN and the New York Airports. Certainly not saying Bridgeport isn’t a good air service market, it certainly is but, Tweed can effectively serve both. Tweed’s catchment area also extends well out towards Groton/New London as well.

BDR will never be an effective commercial service airport again. Their runways are 4600’ and 4700’ long and lack the legal 1000’x500’ runway safety areas Tweed has. All 4 runway ends are obstructed from being extended in some way. Tweed has enough issues operating regional jets off of 5600’. That’s 1000’ more runway with 1000’ clear ways on either end. 1000’ makes a huge difference in terms of runway and climb performance. to comply with the runway safety area requirements for airline service, BDR would have to further shorten the usability of its current runways. Yet the state wants to dump 7 million dollars on a new airline terminal there? Talk about a waste!! Turboprops are gone from airline service now and regional jets will not be able to operate from BDR.

Why would you be ok with Bridgeport seeing that service and not New Haven? Because that’s someone else’s problem? If that’s the case that’s a pretty selfish outlook. BDR has the same, if not worse, neighborhood noise issues. All airports do!

Tweed is the only airport in southern Connecticut that is currently FAA compliant for airline service with room to expand beyond 5600’. (Groton is only 5000’). We’re not talking about buying property, paving wetlands or tearing down houses. We’re talking level, dry land within the airports fence line that would be paved for takeoff and overrun use only.

posted by: steve on January 18, 2019  2:34pm

Quote Brian V, ” I suggest the CAA start working on the old Stratford airport.” Here is a case of making a comment without doing any research. The Stratford airport cannot add to its runway due to having EMAS or engineered materials arrestor system overruns. These are permanent overruns that unlike Tweed’s turf overruns cannot be paved over. The Stratford airport has a 4700 foot runway and Tweed has a 5600 foot runway and at 4700 feet, no airline could offer service. So much for that expert suggestion. The FACT that American Airlines flights are doing very well with many sold out shows Tweed can be a successful airport with the runway upgraded. The FACT that Allegiant Airlines has said they would come to Tweed when the runway is upgraded shows airlines have an interest in serving Tweed. The FACT that the new flights to Charlotte are full is also proof there is a healthy local market for air travel.
We seem to have a few armchair experts with absolutely no airport or airline experience but that does not seem to stop them or at least do some research before making unfounded comments. Stratford airport, puh-leeze!

posted by: Brian V on January 18, 2019  9:25pm

@Pilot & steve,
I am not disqualifying you personally- whoever you may be. But I am questioning the statistics of your ‘official studies’. I don’t believe the number of potential flyers and flights.You compare us to cities like Charlotte- a ridiculous comparison. I question you who say there will be no down-side, or pollution. You forget or could care less about the promises already made and broken to this neighborhood. Anonymously you quote unsupported statistics, and call us nimby’s. Ha!

posted by: Leftoncharlie on January 18, 2019  10:20pm

It would be easier to turn BDR into a cruise port the place is constantly under water. Fact watch it this weekend

posted by: steve on January 18, 2019  11:56pm

For those who gripe about tax payer money going to Tweed.
During its first year flying to Dublin, Ireland out of Bradley International Airport, Aer Lingus missed its revenue goal, triggering a $4.5 million subsidy from the state, the Hartford Business Journal has learned.
The payment, which is pending from the state Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), is part of a $13 million incentive deal inked between state officials and the Irish airline to woo it to Bradley.”” 
All this money for three flights per week and the state is on the hook for 13 million. The current ticket prices for these flights are very low meaning ridership is low. Years back the state had a similar arrangement with Northwest airlines for flights to Amsterdam, when the millions ran out, so did Northwest.The cost for Tweed’s runway project will be 90% funded by the FAA and not from tax dollars but from fees on all airline tickets. An upgraded runway will yield more than one flight and end the dependence on Bradley. The new Charlotte flights are running very high load factors and the flights for 1-19-2019 are sold out for both flights. Mr Noteworthy, your complaint about the 4 million figure, the metro New Haven area population is 862,000 not including other towns and cities where Tweed would be the closest airport raises that would raise that number much higher. The 4 million figure refers to the number of flights passengers take,not each individual person who flies or the area population.The reason Bradley does so poorly with international flights to Europe is due to the close proximity of JFK airport in New York & Boston Logan airport. Both airports offer dozens of airlines, dozens of flights times and non stop service to many cities and if a flight is delayed or cancelled at these two airports, an airline can endorse a ticket for another airline and the passenger can continue the trip.Bradley has no such option,it’s come back tomorrow.

posted by: steve on January 19, 2019  11:30pm

Brian quote, “You compare us to cities like Charlotte”. No comparison was made to Charlotte only that the flights TO Charlotte are doing very well. Please read the comments carefully. The upside would be area travelers having a much closer airport, more airport and airport related jobs would be created, travelers would spend money in local businesses, not in Hartford, and increased income for the airport. To clear some misconceptions, Tweed would not become a huge operation with flights coming and going every few minutes, no large widebody aircraft would serve the airport and just as American airlines has 3 daily flights to Philadelphia, added flights to other hub airports would have about the same number of daily flights, the planes that would serve Tweed are next generation regional jets that are much quieter than the jets of years ago and many homes have been soundproofed. The New Haven metro area can support more flights than at present and all one has to do is look at the population base around Tweed and then look at the population base around Bradley to see that Tweed has many more potential travelers to draw from. The runway project would be done entirely on airport property. Air travel is growing and Tweed needs to meet the local need and the runway project will do just that.

posted by: Sean O'Brien on January 20, 2019  12:41am

@steve et al

Even if your rosy outlook on more flights were true, and the area were underserved, there is much more to consider.  You seem to always put flights first, above all other considerations, not just the year-after-year deficits and taxpayer handouts but also any human or environmental cost, which are dismissed outright as fantasy.

You can literally see the impact on neighboring rooftops - streaks of black soot, much heavier where planes approach the runway… that has no impact on air quality, health, or the environment?  De-icing chemicals have no impact on the surrounding wetlands?  Pavement where there was once salt marshes has no impact on flooding?  Give me a break.

As it turns out, the 2009 expansion should never have been allowed because, well, the agreement was ripped up a decade later.  That construction transformed the neighborhood, and house after house has disappeared from the map.

Residents have learned not to give an inch because Tweed and the City will inevitably take a mile.  You and I both know the 6K number mentioned often by the Mayor is *actually* in the 7-8K range, and that there are already detailed plans for increasing the airport property’s footprint and moving the terminal to the East Haven side (which apparently have been shared with Tweed boosters but not residents).

This isn’t about “a few feet of pavement”.  Enough is enough.

posted by: Leftoncharlie on January 23, 2019  7:30pm

More good news for Tweed in May the noon flight goes to the Embraer 175 aircraft. Use of the CRJ 700 increases also. Nothing but good news since the May 2018 setback. With the industry changing so is this market and American Airlines senses it and is well intrenched for further success.

posted by: Sean O'Brien on January 24, 2019  11:21am


Strange, Tweed always seems to get the plane models to land that “need the runway extended” to land.  If business is so booming, and news is so great, I don’t want to hear about the airport’s woes and more impassioned pleas about saving it through more money and more expansion.

posted by: Cousin Vinny on January 24, 2019  4:29pm

Toni Harp was within her rights to terminate the 2009 agreement as provided by the agreement’s terms. Either municipality could withdraw from it as it wasn’t binding, and New Haven derived no benefit at all, especially when passenger boardings and vehicular parking are capped, limiting the two chief sources of revenue. And then they cry the airport is a “money loser?”
Moreover, this agreement was brokered by a man with NO aviation or aeronautical background, who ran for Congress on the Socialist ticket.
And the state reneged on Tweed’s funding, which pretty much nullified the deal anyway.
As for the state statute limiting the runway length, I can find NO record of any public hearing held at the State Capitol.
In the course of 26 years, two airport agreements were made, and neither placed the airport in any position approaching self-sufficiency, while East Haven gained extra land for their industrial park, and seats on the Airport Authority.
So, while Messrs. DiLieto and DeStefano asked, “Can’t we all get along?,” other U. S. cities went ahead and improved THEIR airports, leaving New Haven to limp along.
For all Mr. O’Brien and Ms. Heerema have said and done regarding the airport, the one thing they HAVEN’T done is to warn potential homebuyers of the airport’s proximity, which would be a REAL service.
This is typical Independent reporting. “Anyone who’s an enemy of Tweed is a friend of mine,” wherein previous targets of their ire become allies. The state senator who’s part-owner of the beach club south of the runway; the xenophobic mayor next door tainted with sexual harassment charges. And whaddya know? They’re both Republicans, but in the case of the airport, it’s all good! Conversely, New Haven Rising, an ally of the working man, is without a voice on this issue. They don’t count here.
Oh, and the two authorities talking to each other? Why would Tweed want to be under the umbrella of an agency that is Bradley’s biggest cheerleader? That’s “expansion?”

posted by: steve on January 24, 2019  4:52pm

@Sean, Quote, “the 2009 expansion should never have been allowed”.What expansion, the runway is still 5600 feet in 1 direction & 5200 feet for landing in the other direction. Its been that way since the 1970’s.Quote, “human or environmental cost”. Tweed is a low volume airport and by your comment, the land around Bradley should be killing fields. Quote,“construction transformed the neighborhood”. Relocating Dodge ave has not transformed the neighborhood, and a few homes gone makes no difference. Quote,” You and I both know the 6K number mentioned often by the Mayor is *actually* in the 7-8K range”.Not true! Paving the southern overrun 1000 feet will make runway 20 landing distance 6200 feet and paving the southern end will yield 6100 for runway 2 landings. The overruns will remain overruns and will be marked off as a non landing surface. This project will bring Tweed on par with the White Plains airport regarding runway length and they handle flights to hub airports with ease. There is no need to go beyond what is planned as Tweed will not offer non stop overseas flights. Everybody who bought homes near Tweed did so knowing full well the airport was there before they were and yet cry about adding more flights.Tweed will never approach the level of flights at Bradley or even White Plains, but it sure can support more service than it does now and American Airlines is seeing a healthy demand for more service. Your scare tactics will not work, other airport have more service and yet the local population is not suffering dire illnesses and property values are remaining constant just like the cove. 
Again, there is no need or desire to go beyond plan because it is not required by the airlines to offer new flights and an added plus, eliminate the dependence on Bradley field. Area hotels and restaurants would see an uptick in business, new jobs created and what some have complained about the funding Tweed receives, more flights, more passengers equal more airport income.