Jump to content

T.F. Green Airport Developments

Frankie811

By Frankie811
in Rhode Island

Recommended Posts

runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

the arrivals and departures information is updated by the AIRLINES - not the AIRPORT!!

the issue i mentioned with the website and arrivals/departures info is that the website has different info than the monitors in the airport. so while the monitors might have information from the airlines, this information is always more up to date than what is on the airport's website. this was not the case before they did the re-design. before the re-design, the information on the website directly reflected what was on the monitors. maybe the info on the website is not updated as often as it used to be. if that's the case, it should be. there's no reason they can't have it exactly the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 690
  • Created
  • Last Reply
basachs Burg

basachs

Posted
Posted

a few things I've been able to find out:

the website is undergoing another round of significant updates due to programming issues from the last re-design. The E-newsletter will be out very soon - the delay on that was due to the issues with the website and compiling the list of recipients.

the arrivals and departures information is updated by the AIRLINES - not the AIRPORT!!

the wall fell at 2:30 this morning, so finding out at 3am from a taxi driver is pretty good since it had just happened at that point. There is no one there at 3am to answer phones either.

The terminal is closed, not the airport, so hearing planes land and depart makes perfect sense. My insider there says the terminal should reopen at about noon.

Thanks for the update. In fact, at 330am when no one else could confirm this for me, i looked here to see if you had posted. :thumbsup:

Yes, getting the info when I did was good. But not being able to confirm until an hour and a half later was frustrating since I had a flight at 6am. The airlines did not know anything because no one came in until 430am. If the airport/airlines recommend getting to the airport 1-2 hours before a flight and I have a 6am flight, then someone should be there an hour before that recommended time (say 3am in my case) to deal with issues that may come up.

If the terminal is closed, it should be posted on the website pretty close(say within a half an hour) to the time the decision is made. When calling an information line, there should be an automated message put on soon after the decision is made letting people know.

I guess I always think an airport is open and has someone doing something like this. Or they have people that they can get to do it quickly should an event happen. I should know better travelling the amount I do, but it really is frustrating when you are the one whose flight gets messed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
Recchia Town

Recchia

Posted
Posted

Avedisian rips study on Green expansion. Mayor Scott Avedisian is blasting the findings of a draft Federal Aviation Administration study that examines the local impact of expanding T.F. Green Airport. http://www.projo.com/news/content/AIRPORT_...8P.330e935.html

A few comments:

1. I know personally three different people who live in Greenwood, all have assumed for years that the Airport will eventually take their houses, and in fact, joke about it constantly.

2. Do people realize they get fair market value for their homes, along with relocation assistance? It will cost them NOTHING.

3. Should we really be worried about losing "commercial businesses" at Post Road and Airport Road? It's an ugly strip mall with a Staples. All the businesses will be relocated with assistance. So who cares?

Obviously I sympathize with those that are in love with their homes and may lose them because of the airport, but you had to know it was coming at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

A few comments:

1. I know personally three different people who live in Greenwood, all have assumed for years that the Airport will eventually take their houses, and in fact, joke about it constantly.

2. Do people realize they get fair market value for their homes, along with relocation assistance? It will cost them NOTHING.

3. Should we really be worried about losing "commercial businesses" at Post Road and Airport Road? It's an ugly strip mall with a Staples. All the businesses will be relocated with assistance. So who cares?

Obviously I sympathize with those that are in love with their homes and may lose them because of the airport, but you had to know it was coming at some point.

exactly on all 3 points... and to be honest, how many absolutely love living in the shadow of the airport listening to planes come and go all day? my aunt lives near it (though she's not affected by the expansion) and said they got used to the noise, but you have to basically pause conversation until the plane is gone (or at least i have to when i'm there because i'm not used to it).

and on the point of getting fair market value, i believe they really end up with slightly more than what their home is worth on top of the relocation assistance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Ranger Burg

Lone Ranger

Posted
Posted

In his most recent mayoral campaign, I took note when Avedisian promoted Warwick as primarily "a place to live."

Then lately, in Warwick Beacon's report about the new Davol HQ, I noted this comment from the mayor:

Mayor Scott Avedisian confessed he has been to so many Carpionato groundbreaking ceremonies that he has lost count. This project he called a
Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

In his most recent mayoral campaign, I took note when Avedisian promoted Warwick as primarily "a place to live."

Then lately, in Warwick Beacon's report about the new Davol HQ, I noted this comment from the mayor:

And in today's article, we see that the mayor is clearly a supporter of Mother Nature as well.

The mayor is quite a friendly fellow, it would seem. Friendly to residents, friendly to business, friendly to Nature.

But it occurs to me that the mayor might have to set a few priorities in the near future. He can't keep talking out of both sides of his mouth forever. Warwick, within its chosen development patterns, doesn't seem to have the room to accomodate all three interests.

Or I dunno, maybe Warwick will have to invade East Greenwich so the mayor can continue to have his cake & eat it too. :thumbsup:

sounds like he rides the same straight talk express bus that john mccain made famous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cotuit Megalopolis

Cotuit

Posted
Posted

The mayor is quite a friendly fellow, it would seem. Friendly to residents, friendly to business, friendly to Nature.

But it occurs to me that the mayor might have to set a few priorities in the near future. He can't keep talking out of both sides of his mouth forever. Warwick, within its chosen development patterns, doesn't seem to have the room to accomodate all three interests.

It'll be interesting to see which side of his mouth he lands on if the speculation about him running for Governor or Senate pan out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

It'll be interesting to see which side of his mouth he lands on if the speculation about him running for Governor or Senate pan out.

you mean when he needs to stop thinking only about the people who live right around the airport and start thinking about the greater good of the state (and the whole city of warwick)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frankie811 City

Frankie811

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The Federal Aviation Administration has thrown out several proposed plans for expansion at T.F. Green Airport and is now considering a scaled-back runway extension that would take fewer homes and cost significantly less to construct, while still adding nonstop coast-to-coast service that is considered critical to air travel growth. http://www.projo.com/news/content/AIRPORT_...JH.330cfa9.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RLucas83 Whistle-Stop

RLucas83

Posted
Posted

8,700' is enough to get just about anything PVD would need in the future. By them keeping one of the 9,350 options means that, that option could theoretically be approved, and hopefully when they opt for the smaller option, it will satisfy warwick for the most part. They just really shouldnt go much lower than 8,700 though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted

8,700' is enough to get just about anything PVD would need in the future. By them keeping one of the 9,350 options means that, that option could theoretically be approved, and hopefully when they opt for the smaller option, it will satisfy warwick for the most part. They just really shouldnt go much lower than 8,700 though.

what would the 9305' runway be needed for and why is that number always thrown out there as what we need?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RLucas83 Whistle-Stop

RLucas83

Posted
Posted

what would the 9305' runway be needed for and why is that number always thrown out there as what we need?

With aircraft performance there is always a "range" that you want to be in and there are dozens of factors that go into it, Weight, passengers, cargo, winds, temperature, barometric pressure etc... Typically you plan for the hot summer days with high pressure. Now chances are that the flight to the west coast wont be leaving at 2:30pm when it is the hottest, though it could, but if that costs an extra $100 million and 2 years of lawsuits when you can just have the flight at a different time......

ive seen the British Airways 747s use Runway 9-27 at BOS which is 7,000ft, but they cant use it every day.

Lastly, aircraft can adjust their takeoff proceedures for shorter runways, i.e a short field takeoff (taxi onto the runways, hold brakes, full power, then release the brakes) Orange County Calif (SNA) has tanscons to Newark, NJ on a 5,700 ft runway. But in their case only two types of planes can do that, the Boeing 757 and 737-700.

In PVD's case the 8,700ft option likely takes a few aircraft from the fleet that were making the numbers higher, such as an older, domestic configured 767-300 or Airbus A300 or simmilar. 9,350 was all aircraft, i believe 8,700 ft accomodates 91% of the aircraft that can do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mental757 Burg

mental757

Posted
Posted

overall, this should be good in that it will cost less to build, effect less homes, and hopefully takes less time from start to finish (land acquisition is less) while still being able to provide a runway that serve the majority of airlines that would ever consider going nonstop to the west coast. All the while lessening the impact to Warwick and the anti-expansion folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.