“We Don’t Want It!” Tweed Neighbors Declare

Stephanie Addenbrooke PhotoCity and Tweed-New Haven Airport officials pitched plane-weary Morris Cove neighbors Wednesday night on a plan to pave another 1,500 feet of runway to boost air service into town—and received a ritual chorus of angry opposition from an overflow crowd.

“We don’t want it!” David Franco shouted across the room to airport Executive Director Tim Larson at a community meeting held at Tweed.

Asked if community members will get a say in the new plans, Larson did not provide a concrete answer.

At that point about half of the 100 neighbors present proceeded to leave, uttering words of disgust at the expansion and distrust of those running the airport.

But neighbors plan to be back—as early as Thursday night, when a second public meeting on the issue is scheduled. (The meeting, to begin at 6 p.m., may be moved to Nathan Hale School, 480 Townsend Ave., to accommodate the size of the crowd. Check the Tweed and city websites for updates.)

Conflict is nothing new between Morris Cove neighbors—many of whom resent having an airport in the neighborhood where they bought homes—and airport and city government and business leaders, who consider modernizing the airport an essential engine repair for New Haven’s economic growth. Civic leaders cast the neighborhood opposition as unreasonable NIMBYism that threatens the broader city’s economic interests; neighbors view officials’ plans as unfair intrusions on their quality of life backed by untrustworthy promises.

What is new, at least for the past year, is the latest plan: Officials said that in order to make the airport viable, and to stop bleeding taxpayers to support it, a 4,600-foot runway needs to extend to 6,100. To create the extended runway, officials want to pave the grassy area on each end with hopes of convincing airlines to fly more jets to New Haven.

And neighbors have a new objection to add to those they’ve voiced for decades: In 2009 the then-mayors of New Haven and East Haven (where much of the airport sits) signed an agreement to allow for some improvements in return for not paving that much more of the runway. Neighbors Wednesday night invoked that promise as a reason they won’t trust officials. (Click here for a report on officials’ previous attempt to convince neighbors about the plan, last June; and here for a report on how neighbors subsequently pressed state legislative candidates on the issue last October.)

Currently, American Airlines operates four flights a day to Philadelphia. Larson and the team at Tweed want to expand to 25 flights a day, introducing Chicago, Washington D.C. and Orlando as new destinations. Larson said that the growth in the area’s biotech industry and the draw of the local universities require better transportation service to attract future investors and businesses.

He said in order to meet new industry standards, Tweed seeks to pave over the current safety areas of grass at each end of the current runway—but not to expand the area of the airport itself.

To carry out the plan, officials would need to amend a state law, the Tweed-New Haven Airport Authority Act, that was based on the 2009 mayoral agreement. That law states: “The airport shall not exceed the existing paved runway length of five thousand six hundred linear feet.”

Sean O’Brien, an organizer of a Voters Opposed to Tween Expansion (VOTE) campaign, handed out bright yellow flyers during the meeting pushing against the new plans. He said he was most concerned by the politicians “going back on their word,” a theme of the evening’s discussion. He cited previous meetings when Larson, among others, promised the community that they would not pave any more of the land.

“Promises have been made and broken,” said Susan Campion, a neighborhood activist.

New Haven Mayor Toni Harp introduced the meeting by describing the airport as “the backyard” for many of the residents who were present, which is why its future must be decided in a “responsible way.” She argued, for the airport to be viable it must change to accommodate changing times.

As part of a question and answer session, Claudia Bosch (pictured) presented data demonstrating the decline of municipal airports across the state. She questioned figures suggesting that the “catchment” area for Tweed would be 1.4 million residents after the expansion.

“This is a multi-airport region,” she said, in which there are many local airports are closing or downsizing services. “How is New Haven going to buck the trend?”

Others questioned the need for the expansion given Gov. Malloy’s plans to improve rail services to Hartford and Springfield, along the route toward Bradley Airport.

Bosch’s young son, Lucas, raised his own concern that the wetlands would not be adequately looked after, opening the evening’s dialogue with environmental concerns. The room was silenced when one resident asked about how the plans were accommodating predicted rising sea levels in East Haven. Other neighbors said planes’ diesel fuels are affecting their own health, in addition to the health of the environment.

Neighbor Ruth Olson complained about noise pollution, even though there are plans to help soundproof the houses directly surrounding the airport.

Larson expressed confidence that the airport’s expansion would benefit local businesses, and provide more opportunities for travel.

“We think we can provide a great service at a great airport,” he said.

John Picard, chairman of the Tweed New Haven Airport Authority, adjourned the meeting after neighbors pressed Mayor Harp (pictured) to answer more questions about the planned expansion. Harp promptly left.

“Mayor, speak!” remaining residents briefly chanted.

Olson called Harp’s abrupt departure a disappointment. She said she plans to return to the second meeting Thursday night, where she hopes Harp will field questions.

Tags: , ,

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry


posted by: westville man on May 21, 2015  7:47am

I am so tired of the johnny-come-lately NIMBYS. It’s like the same mind-set here in Westville that don’t want Yale Bowl or the Tennis Center used at all.  I’ve posted before about this- it’s small-minded vocal people who seem to get their way.
I grew up about a mile from Tweed in East Haven.  The airport was an asset then and it can be an asset now. If only the politicians would stop pandering the votes of a few.
And for those who say it’s not going to be an asset and self-sufficient- how do we know if we never fully support its growth??

posted by: robn on May 21, 2015  7:48am

Tweeds two runway approach paths basically bracket the city of New Haven. So be careful of what you ask for folks. Its one thing to have a jet buzz over you 4 times a day at a thousand feet (or 500 if you live in Fair Haven) and its another thing for it to happen every 15 minutes.

posted by: TheMadcap on May 21, 2015  8:17am

“Conflict is nothing new between Morris Cove neighbors—many of whom resent having an airport in the neighborhood where they bought homes”

Let me translate this. A bunch of people, people who generally have the means to have ample choice of neighborhoods when home buying at that, are mad they willingly moved into a neighborhood that has had an airport for decades. On top of it, for long term residents(who often like to use their long term status to give more credence to their concerns), unless they have amnesia they should be aware of the fact Tweed use to be a lot busier in terms of passenger flights back in the 90’s.

posted by: THREEFIFTHS on May 21, 2015  8:18am

If you want to know the real deal about New Haven.Read this book same game plan.

City for Sale: Ed Koch and the Betrayal of New York

By Wayne Barrett


posted by: Claudia Bosch on May 21, 2015  8:19am

Some details to the economic viability of Tweed’s expansion.
The city writes about 1.4 million people living closer to Tweed than any other airport. That includes towns like Groton (drive to Green RI 47 min. – to Tweed 51 min.) or Middletown (drive to Bradley 32 min. – to Tweed 39 min.). Thus, this statement is false. The catchment area in which Tweed is the closest airport is much smaller.
However, is closeness THE reason why people fly from an airport? Or is it the number of destinations offered, of choices and – last but maybe most important – price? Flight customers are price sensitive. Ask yourself, when was the last time that you did not look at the price for a ticket and just booked the most convenient one (considering driving time)? Where is this demand? It has not materialized yet.
Now look at the supply side. The airlines are following a strategy called “capacity discipline”. According to a MIT study (Wittman 2014), this strategy “is still in full force” and “the strategy has proved to be profitable as airlines removed economically unviable service and duplicate connectivity” (p. 2). Exactly that happened at the airports the city considers as its peers. At Harrisburg, Albany or Leigh (PA) the numbers of seats and flights decreased from 2007 to 2013. The SAME story at: Bradley, Whiteplains or Green. Why should the airlines come to Tweed? Because Tweed will be the exception? Because what is true elsewhere does not apply here? Paving the safety zones is throwing good money after bad.  New Haven grew economically in the past while Tweed was on the decline.

posted by: anonymous on May 21, 2015  8:44am

Having one or two flights a day each to Chicago, National, and Atlanta would have a huge benefit to the Greater New Haven area. Hopefully, all of the elected officials in the towns that surround New Haven will push for the airport to modernize itself to meet the reality of travel conditions in 2015. Paving the existing strip is a minor change to accommodate current rules, not an expansion of the airport.

posted by: mechanic on May 21, 2015  9:13am

Here’s why people choose to fly out of a specific airport:  price and time.

The price includes the cost to get to the airport and park for the time they are away.  Oftentimes, Tweed is a much better deal because of the cheap parking, and it only costs one’s own gas to get there, rather than a towncar, cab, or CT Limo.

While flight times are limited at Tweed, one can fly out of there relatively quickly.  If one has to go to Bradley or LaGuardia, there’s added time to get from parking to the terminal which is not an issue at Tweed, as well as a variable amount of time to get through security.  Even if those airports are closer, one has to add at least 30 minutes to the drivetime to account for getting from the parking to the terminal.

Given these reasons, Tweed is often the choice over technically closer airports because it is less taxing of one’s time and money to fly out of there.

posted by: RHeerema on May 21, 2015  9:16am

Rather than simple “NIMBY” thinking, many neighbors are really concerned about “ROI,” return on investment.

How will all the residents of New Haven and East Haven actually benefit from this additional round of expansion.  People posting here may not know of the many rounds of expansion that Tweed has already undergone. The Millions of Dollars spent at the city state regional and federal levels.  With promises of economic development, more access to faraway airports, traffic calming, noise reduction, etc.

The expansions have ALL GONE THROUGH.  The benefits have YET TO BE SEEN.

*Nothing that Tweed has wanted has been blocked.*

The 2009 agreement was predicated on airport expansion.  The airport got more land and expanded the runway from 5,200 linear feet to 5,600 linear feet and filled in land for the runway safety areas. New Haven and East Haven residents have given and given and given. 

Where are the flights? Where is the neighborliness from the airport authority that we’ve been chastened to offer time and time again in favor of the airport’s survival efforts? 

In fact, the entire airline industry is contracting.  Those thinking that we’ll return to 1990s levels of enplanements are not reckoning with the changed economy. 

EVEN if we pave, will airlines actually return?
EVEN if we pave, will businesses really relocate here?
EVEN if we pave, will there be more jobs for New Haven Residents? Isn’t that the goal? At what cost?

There are many other options for economic development without nearly as many deficits as this continued losing battle.  Regional airports all over the nation are closing.  Airlines are merging.  It’s over, people.  The shiny jet planes aren’t coming back.  Even if we pave…

posted by: StopTweed.org on May 21, 2015  9:42am

Attention all “johnny-come-lately NIMBYs” (Not Intimidated Merely By Yammering):

Please join our campaign at https://stoptweed.org

This issue extends beyond Morris Cove and East Haven, and we want to build a broad coalition around the state.  Handouts to Tweed come primarily from the state, not just New Haven.  We share the same air, the same land, and the same water.

FY13-14 Tweed Budget Summary -
Revenues: $3,059,629
Expenses: $3,059,083
Net Income: $546

The City provides 10.6% of FY13-14 Tweed revenue and the State provides 49.0% of Tweed revenue.

Source: City of New Haven, Office of the Mayor, http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/Mayor/pdfs/Without Contacts/7.3 Tweed.pdf

posted by: TheMadcap on May 21, 2015  10:20am

lol at the idea neighbors care anything about ROI. A billionaire could offer to provide to cover the entire cost of expansion, and there could be 3 airlines lined up willing to offer service to DC, Chicago and Atlanta and be in the position to directly create 200 jobs around the airport, and people would still be having a conniption.

posted by: robn on May 21, 2015  10:24am

Yes it is about price and time but those things don’t exist in a vacuum. All cities have to make decisions about efficient land use vs the convenience of a close-by airport. In most other places, city leaders have correctly realized that inner-core land is more valuable for uses other than airports and have located those on the periphery of a city. Often a 30-60 minutes commute…its very typical (New York, Dallas, Indianapolis, Miami, etc etc.) Hartford falls well within the 30-60 minute commute bracket from New Haven on what’s possibly the smoothest driving corridor in the Northeast.

posted by: RHeerema on May 21, 2015  11:09am

Um, yeah. There’s no billionaire coming because it’s a bad investment.  That’s my point. The return this investment includes *not* more flights or more destinations or more revenue; but continued noise, air pollution and speeding traffic. And reduced wetlands with storm water runoff and reduced support for storm surges in this delicate coastal area. That’s the way it’s been and that’s the way it will stay.

This is a *tiny* pocket of land in the middle of residential neighborhoods, site on top of and in the middle of wetlands.  It will never get to the scale to be sustainable.

If you look at this clearly, you’ll see the operating funds are a blind for the big FAA capital improvement grants. Tiny airport? No money. Shiny new parking lots? One airline and few passengers. Airlines are merging and scaling back.

posted by: LookOut on May 21, 2015  11:18am

PLEASE - let’s move forward and develop a real airport with real services. 

I find it difficult to believe that those who bought real estate in the area didn’t realize that there was an airport there.

Let’s get serious.

posted by: Claudia Bosch on May 21, 2015  11:34am

Wake up: The airline industry has changed. Even with a longer runway (paid by whoever), you will NOT see three airlines flocking into Tweed.

Fact is: in 2007 Bradley was served by 10 airlines. 2013 seven were left.
Fact is: in 2007 Green was served by 9 airlines. 2013 seven were left.
Fact is: in September 2015 American Airways will be likely shut down (AP press May 13th 2015). According to the AP article American Airline will replace the flights (that makes six airlines at Bradley ...).
However, not only disappeared another airline, no: what will happen in the future with excess or double AA capacity within one region? For us, Bradley and Tweed might represent two regions. In Texas (headquarter of AA) a 50 min. drive is called suburbia (or close by).

Most likely the city will waste more of our tax-dollars without any return of investment. Commercial air traffic will not rebound in these little regional airports.

posted by: Noteworthy on May 21, 2015  12:09pm

Unaddressed Problem Notes:

1. Broken Promises. There is an agreement which ended all litigation, and legislation, both of which were signed just a few years ago. What is the urgency to upend that agreement?

2. Other airports, including Bradley have been losing passengers and shrinking services. Tweed will be different with a new runway? Why?

3. Catchment area is clearly overstated. But nonetheless, 99% of New Haven people cannot use Tweed either for price or economics. If Tweed is an economic driver which is somewhat dubious, it would be one for travelers outside of the city. What’s being done to get other communities to pay the chronic deficit spending in terms of debt and operations? Anything?

4. Paving the additional 1500 feet will bring in more airlines taxpayers are told. Does Tweed have any official Letters of Intent stipulating this or is this a “build it and they will come” sort of thing.

5. How can you overcome the deficit in trust when your history is so damning? Even the location last night showed a level of disrespect for citizens and/or poor preparation which seems to be historically indicative.

6. Why didn’t Mayor Harp stay for questions?

7. Is the city petitioning legislature to overturn the ban this year despite resident opposition? If so, doesn’t that further distrust?


posted by: StopTweed.org on May 21, 2015  12:22pm

“The Airport Community meeting that was scheduled for May 21, 2015 at the airport has been moved to Nathan Hale School located at 480 Townsend Avenue, New Haven”

No mention on Tweed or City websites yet, not surprisingly. Hope they’ll have a shuttle for the people showing up to the wrong location.

posted by: FacChec on May 21, 2015  12:28pm

Tweed neighbors have been decrying this airport and expansionism since before many of us can remember.

In 2008 the broken promises began here:


Follow in 2013 by this..lest we forget:


And while this important difference unfurls, the two alders of the area,

Alphonse Paolillo Jr. 151 Huntington RD.

Salvatore E. DeCola 120 Townsend Ave.

are AOL or MIA or both.

posted by: TheMadcap on May 21, 2015  1:00pm

“That’s my point. The return this investment includes *not* more flights or more destinations or more revenue; but continued noise, air pollution and speeding traffic.”

Thank you for proving my point that this has nothing to do with ROI in regards to the airport. You simultaneously said there’s not the possibility of more flights then put up a bunch of problems that would only be caused by more flights.

posted by: asdfghjkl; on May 21, 2015  1:21pm

If they make the runway longer, but the new flights don’t come, does that actually hurt anybody? It seems that if the neighbors are so convinced that this is a bad investment and the new flights won’t come, they shouldn’t really care if they enlarge the runway or not. Otherwise, it seems disingenuous to claim that this has anything to do with the success of the airport.

posted by: Claudia Bosch on May 21, 2015  1:39pm

@ Madcap – I do not worry about more commercial flights. They will not come. I hate wasting money though! Also, building a longer runway will be an invitation for **more** private jets. Different rules apply for private jets (noise, fuel efficiency …). They are the loud ones, they come and go whenever they please. Nobody at the airport enforces rules on them. Wild West in the East.

Last election season, the expansion proponents tried to sell their plans with this argument: If we get more commercial flights, we have less private flights. Thus, with more flights in total you have less noise …! Interestingly, this year around I have not heard that one yet.

posted by: Anon-neighbor on May 21, 2015  2:08pm

What is the hurry is here??? 3 precipitously scheduled community meetings have opponents angrier & more mistrustful than ever!  Poor planning in terms of site, inability of Larson and unwillingness of Harp to answer questions is perplexing.  What is forcing this discussion RIGHT NOW—the end of the legislative session—beginning of the election season?
Why didn’t the airport/administration wait until they had the following information:
•  Utilization statistics on the “Buzz” chartered flights to DC starting this summer,
•  Results of the still to be scheduled environmental assessment,
•  Feedback from homeowners participating in the noise abatement program?
Just what is the hurry is here???

posted by: KNB on May 21, 2015  2:20pm

Who is hurt by a longer runway that no one uses?  All of us - we are paying for this runway with our taxes.  A dollar spent on it is one that cannot be spent somewhere else.  Currently the state is in a fiscal crisis - the city is not doing well either - money spent on Tweed - is money that cannot be spent on schools, roads or other programs.  That is why expanding a runway and hoping that it will be used makes no sense.  And, it will not be used.  As Joe Sharkey reported last year in the New York Times, “And most basically, if you live in a small or midsize city, your air service choices have been diminishing — and that is not going to change. If your local news outlets assure you that the city airport and municipal officials are spending money on studies to attract new air service, they are probably chasing ghosts.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/01/business/efforts-by-smaller-airports-to-lure-new-service-largely-lost-causes.html)

And - our officials are chasing ghosts and chasing them with our tax dollars, all of our tax dollars.

posted by: Yair on May 21, 2015  3:04pm

When I came to this area in 2003 I rooted for Tweed to become a successful airport. But watching this unfold over years I think it’s a lost cause. Bradley is a lovely, functional airport and almost as convenient, and our collective efforts are better spent building better transportation services there. Train service in that direction would be awesome, but even a dedicated regular bus would be good. Why this endless battle over a tiny and useless prize?

posted by: TweedMythbusters on May 21, 2015  3:16pm

The “Tweed Mythbusters” were present at the meeting as well, and we’d like to invite everyone, pro- and anti-airport, to come and check out the myths we are debunking over at our humble Facebook page. We strive to provide reliable, researched, and cited information to reveal the truths surrounding the Tweed Airport. As a group of aviation professionals currently working in the industry, we have a vested interest in ensuring both sides of the debate are presented with nothing but the “TweedFacts!” We do not believe in disrespectful talk to our elected officiasls, nor bullying local residents. We’re not affiliated with the airport authority, administration, construction contractors, local/state/federal government entities.

We are simply a group seeking to offer the truth, and promote the positive economic, social, and societal growth a balanced and properly functioning Tweed Airport can bring!


posted by: steve on May 21, 2015  3:45pm

Quote “RHeerema” Your quote on this forum is the same as your post on the Register.Its filled with the same inaccurate comments.
The airport is not your biggest enemy, it will never cause the problems your imagination is fomenting but all it will do in an improved condition is make air travel easier for area flyers and keep more of the travelers dollars in the hands of nearby businesses.
The local area can support air service than it currently provides and the runway is the last bit of infrastructure that needs updating.

posted by: steve on May 21, 2015  5:23pm

Quote “robn on May 21, 2015 8:48am”
Tweeds two runway approach paths basically bracket the city of New Haven. So be careful of what you ask for folks. Its one thing to have a jet buzz over you 4 times a day at a thousand feet (or 500 if you live in Fair Haven) and “its another thing for it to happen every 15 minutes.”

That would make 96 flights per day. I told you a million times, don’t exaggerate. 
No wonder why people are all in a panic. All this misinformation and over active imaginations creating the chicken little “sky is falling” effect.

posted by: robn on May 21, 2015  5:47pm


96 flights? Meaning 24 hour flights?
Who’s exaggerating?

posted by: steve on May 21, 2015  9:44pm

Quote “robn” it was you who said a landing every fifteen minutes and did not offer a time frame. No matter what the time frame, it was a silly remark to make because even if Tweed had 20 daily flights spread over the course of a day, it would not be every 15 minutes. The average time noise window for landing aircraft is about 25 to 35 seconds. So no need to sensationalize, but as Joe Friday said, just the facts ma’am.

posted by: NH112015 on May 22, 2015  6:01am

You buy a house near an airport, and then you complain about the noise.  Amazing.  Tweed New Haven isn’t new; it was dedicated in 1931.  The numbskulls who are complaining about the airport should have bought into a different neighborhood.  I’m happy about the runway expansion: it’s a convenient airport, and we need more flight options.

posted by: robn on May 22, 2015  7:34am


I’ve never been to a 24 hour airport have you? Besides, the specific goal of the runway expansion is to significantly increase the frequency of flights. That’s an undisputable fact. But don’t believe me. Go to what has comically been described as a non-partisan FB page presenting Tweed “facts”.


posted by: steve on May 22, 2015  9:39am

Quote robn “I’ve never been to a 24 hour airport have you?” If you have flown from Bradley, Laguardia, Kennedy,or Newark, you have flown from a 24 hour airport. The FAA controls take offs and landings 24-7.
Tweed will never reach the levels at these other airports in terms of airlines and the number of flights so why are making a mountain out of a mole hill?
The airports been there for almost 90 years and in that time the area has grown and it stands to reason that the airport should grow to support the increased population and business community.
Too bad all this anti airport sentiment cannot be channeled into some useful cause that benefit people who really need the help of their neighbors.
No one who bought homes in the past decades cannot say they did not know the airport was there. Also saying that they expected the airport to stay the same over many years is just foolish. The New Haven metro area is over 850,000 and the demand is here now.Tweed can be the airport of choice for thousands who now use other far away airports.

posted by: Don in New Haven on May 22, 2015  9:58am

I attended both meetings and listened carefully.

When I asked about property tax from Robinson, Mr. Larson told me the tax is paid to East Haven because the property is on the East Haven side of the runway, even though New Haven owns the property.

In my opinion, the cross-wind runway was closed to prepare a huge parking area for all of the “new airplane” arrivals, which I don’t think will ever come but the new facilities and areas will be developed there.

With this runway closed, why can’t the family farmers now have access to the open area on Burr Ave?

In the end, Tweed may become a massive paved area with much ado about nothing.

Yes, paving the Runway Safety Areas will create jobs and stimulate the economy for those who pave and maintain runways and Runway Safety Areas. They may receive enough to help them donate money for the conduct of more favorable elections of those in office.

We were told that Tweed does not control General Aviation (GA) take off and landing but carefully counts the numbers so it can gain money for each. No control of GA? Why?

Has anybody ever seen an audit of Tweed funds?

posted by: robn on May 22, 2015  11:15am


Let’s just get to the crux of it. According to you an expanded runway will mean more than 4 flights per day. How many flights will there be. If its a lot more, how is this not a disturbance to neighbors (including most of New Haven which is in the flight path) and its only a few more, why should taxpayers invest in this?

posted by: steve on May 22, 2015  2:00pm

robn, I offered a number on what I think Tweed could wind up with with an improved runway and the figure is 13. Could be a bit more or a bit less. When one considers the noise time frame of a landing or departing aircraft being about 25 to 35 seconds, what possible deleterious effect will that have on the area?
There is more noise more often from loud cars and motorcycles than is generated at Tweed.
Some posters stubbornly comment that we don’t need another Bradly field and that can never happen at Tweed. Its market and area footprint will dictate how much service can be offered at Tweed and it will never approach what Bradley has as far as the number of flights.
Could you really find fault if Tweed offered around 13 daily flights? The amount of private aircraft movements far exceed the number of commercial flights and will do so even if the number of airline flights climbs to the figure I mention.
Talk to the pilots at tweed and if you can talk to a commercial airline pilot and see what you can learn about airports and airlines and how they view Tweeds runway plans.

posted by: StopTweed.org on May 22, 2015  2:52pm

“There is more noise more often from loud cars and motorcycles than is generated at Tweed.”

You clearly don’t live in the area. Though that plane noise is frequently blamed on the General Aviation boogeyman.

The City presentation last night had commercial plane flights increase from the current average of 4 to somewhere between 15 and 30.  Yale has been invoked at the 5/20 and 5/21 City/Tweed meetings as the primary reason for this increase, specifically to keep New Haven competitive with Princeton and Cambridge for “knowledge workers”.

If Yale is an asset to Greater New Haven, and that depends on your perspective, that asset is in the people who live in the area and work for the University, hospitals, etc.

We keep being told about jobs (with rather dubious numbers), but temporary positions for people without strong ties to New Haven will not enrich the Elm City.  Those who fly frequently for work have little to no investment in their neighborhoods.  Top executives for the City and University may dispute this from the steps of their expensive properties, but those executives will not fill planes.

posted by: robn on May 22, 2015  3:19pm


I probably wouldn’t have a problem with 13 flights per day but if the number was really that small (which I doubt it is) the idea that it can be a significant economic driver is overhype.

posted by: Don in New Haven on May 22, 2015  3:42pm

Because I have no inside information, I feel free to speculate.

I understand that General Aviation at Tweed is managed by Robinson and not by New Haven.

Robinson pays property tax to East Haven, even though it is situated on New Haven property.

So, what does New Haven do when Commercial Aviation at Tweed goes to zero later this year?

Are these the keys to all the force being applied to promoting Commercial Aviation at Tweed?

Do the NH managers fear losing their jobs?

How much money would NH save by getting out of the management of non-existent Commercial Aviation at Tweed and maintenance of the roads and grounds???

posted by: TweedMythbusters on May 23, 2015  8:03am

Reply to Don on May 22nd at 10:58am:

Don, thanks for posing such great questions! We wanted to make our replies to these inquiries well reasoned and researched, and thus we are unable to present you the answers here. Please head on over to our posting about this on Facebook!


With Regards,

The Tweed Mythbusters

posted by: Don in New Haven on May 23, 2015  5:03pm


Thank you for providing comprehensive answers on facebook for all to read.

posted by: steve on May 24, 2015  5:55pm

ROBN Quote “I probably wouldn’t have a problem with 13 flights per day but if the number was really that small (which I doubt it is) the idea that it can be a significant economic driver is overhype.”
At 13 flights that would be a bit over 3 times the number of travelers as compared to today. That would translate into more dollars spent at local businesses, more income for the airport, more airport and airport related jobs.
Economic growth will come slowly but as news of Tweed having expanded air service circulates,ridership will increase and some flights might be up-gauged meaning airlines can use a 70 seat aircraft for a 50 seater.
Just to preempt some comments that a larger aircraft will mean more noise, not so. As a matter of fact, the newer 70 to 90 seat regional jets are quieter than some of the smaller ones.
Tweed for years has been stunted in its growth and now progress is being made that is long overdue.
When new service is introduced, some of the locals who are railing against Tweed might have to wear a disguise to avoid being seen at the airport taking a flight at an airport that they so vehemently opposed.

posted by: StopTweed.org on May 24, 2015  10:35pm

“When new service is introduced, some of the locals who are railing against Tweed might have to wear a disguise to avoid being seen at the airport taking a flight at an airport that they so vehemently opposed.”

Y’know what?  You’re right.  We’ll already be wearing masks to protect our lungs as we walk down Burr Street.  Some of us might even have masks attached to an oxygen tank.

posted by: robn on May 24, 2015  10:52pm


According to you, Instead of 200 passengers per day tweed will serve 600 passengers per day? How will this be an economically impactful use of resources in a county of 900,000 people?

posted by: TweedMythbusters on May 25, 2015  8:48am

Hi, robn! Economic impacts are not just a product of the number of people they move, but also the ideas and goods which are transported by these aircraft, and by the jobs (both direct and indirect) which are created as a result of a successful airport. Airports have direct, indiret, and induced impacts on the economy.

Direct impacts include jobs, payroll, expenditures by airport tenants for local goods and services, and taxable income by businesses which directly support operations at the airport.

Indirect impacts include any and all spending by passengers and visitors to the airport on local markets and businesses. By using your numbers calculations, an additional ~145,000 people infusing money into the local economy (taxis, hotels, restaurants, gift purchases, moving expenses, college expenses, vacations, etc.) would most certainly number in the hundreds of thousands, if not more, dollars into the local economy as a result. This doesn’t just benefit New Haven or East Haven, but all of Southern Connecticut.

Induced impact effects include any businesses or services created as a result of the impact of an improved airport. Payrolls, employer expenditures, expanded services and opportunities, more jobs at existing employers. Because these and the effects above compound each other, and have what some refer to as a multiplier effect, we are talking about hundreds or thousands of direct or indirect jobs, millions of dollars in paychecks, spread throughout the entire Southern Connecticut region.

When Tweed wins, everyone in Southern Connecticut wins. Of course this won’t be an immediate result. Such improvements will take place over years of growth and investment. But we cannot even begin to realize these advantages unless Tweed is allowed to improve itself and become competitive with the rest of the country. 

The Tweed Mythbusters have released a number of posts concerning the economic impact Tweed will have, with more on the way!


posted by: steve on May 25, 2015  3:17pm

To StopTweed.org Quote ” Y’know what?  You’re right.  We’ll already be wearing masks to protect our lungs as we walk down Burr Street.  Some of us might even have masks attached to an oxygen tank.”

Time to stop smoking. Seriously, adding 6 to 10 daily flights will not cause the serious health problems you speak about and you know it.
I have seen a pattern of misinformation especially from your posts as you seem to grasp at straws to discredit the airport. Your quote that the runway was expanded from 5200 feet to 5600 feet in 2009. is an outright untruth.The runway since the early 70’s has been 5600 feet, though landing on runway 20 only affords 5200 feet
More untruths, “In fact, the entire airline industry is contracting.  Those thinking that we’ll return to 1990s levels of enplanements are not reckoning with the changed economy.”

A quote from Claudia, “Fact is: in 2007 Bradley was served by 10 airlines. 2013 seven were left.
Fact is: in 2007 Green was served by 9 airlines. 2013 seven were left.
Fact is: in September 2015 American Airways will be likely shut down (AP press May 13th 2015).”
Claudia, if you read more carefully, its Usairways that will not longer exist because it is being merged into American airlines, the largest carrier in the world.
What Claudia also failed to mention that in that time frame eight airlines merged into four airlines. Airlines are still adding new service, and increasing their fleet numbers.
Tweed has been contacted over the years by up to three airlines that I am aware of that are interested in starting service to Tweed.
They all say they need more runway, it was the market that attracted them in the first place.

Again Claudia Quote, ” building a longer runway will be an invitation for **more** private jets. Different rules apply for private jets (noise, fuel efficiency.” Wrong again, the Tweed ordinance applies to all aircraft wanting to land at Tweed.
It appears you girls need to do some serious study and research.

posted by: Christopher Schaefer on May 26, 2015  7:42pm

I hope that in Nov. 2016 Morris Cove residents will remember that Rosa DeLauro was pushing for the Tweed expansion: http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20150504/new-haven-mayor-harp-delauro-to-press-residents-on-tweed-runway-expansion