T.F. Green Airport Developments

[Sin5Cents]

"This funding will help many families who have been forced to deal with the problem of airport noise"

Forced?

Did they not notice the big AIRPORT they drove by on their way over to the house with the realtor?

Did they not wonder why the house was selling for about 10-20% less than any other house they looked at in Warwick?

What a sweetheart deal these chuckleheads are getting.... Nevertheless, it'll be good for Rhode Island to see them go... too bad, nobody has the political fortitude to just seize the properties by eminent domain and pay the owners what they the houses are really worth (i.e. 80% the value of a typical Warwick home).

[webbage]

Forced?

Did they not notice the big AIRPORT they drove by on their way over to the house with the realtor?

Did they not wonder why the house was selling for about 10-20% less than any other house they looked at in Warwick?

What a sweetheart deal these chuckleheads are getting.... Nevertheless, it'll be good for Rhode Island to see them go... too bad, nobody has the political fortitude to just seize the properties by eminent domain and pay the owners what they the houses are really worth (i.e. 80% the value of a typical Warwick home).

I'm not sure if eminent domain would work. Doesn't it have to be a government agency that needs it? (I think RIAC is semi-independent) In addition, no expansion has been officialy approved.

In addition, I'm not a big fan of eminent domain to begin with.

[runawayjim]

I'm not sure if eminent domain would work. Doesn't it have to be a government agency that needs it? (I think RIAC is semi-independent) In addition, no expansion has been officialy approved.

In addition, I'm not a big fan of eminent domain to begin with.

eminent domain doesn't necessarily have to be for the government agency, but it does need to greatly improve the area economically (which the expansion would).

[Frankie811]

Didn't I read somewhere that when the FAA gives the order to the RIAC to expand the main runway that they must obey, and that the City of Warwick has no say in it?

[RLucas83]

Didn't I read somewhere that when the FAA gives the order to the RIAC to expand the main runway that they must obey, and that the City of Warwick has no say in it?

The FAA doesnt issue such orders, the FAA can however, endorse the project and state that the environmental impacts are acceptable, which would essentially leave Warwick without a leg to stand on. Warwick can only intervene if the project impacts wetlands. There are no wetlands to the south, meaning the airport has an avenue to attain the desired expansion, however, the south expansion is most detrimental for housing impact with over 350 houses i believe. This means warwick would either have to not veto a wetlands impact, or watch 350 houses get displaced....so essentially between a rock and a hard place.

[JimmyGreaves]

I apologize of this has already been covered, but I was curious if anyone knew why runway expansion was not part of the project which built the new terminal back in the 1990s.

[mental757]

I apologize of this has already been covered, but I was curious if anyone knew why runway expansion was not part of the project which built the new terminal back in the 1990s.

At the time of the terminal renovation, the master plan (which has to be approved by the FAA and must have gone through the EIS process they are going through now) didn't identify any need to extend the runway. Before the terminal was renovated and Southwest Airlines came in and drove passenger throughput beyond anyone's previous vision, there was little need to extend the runway since the airport was a sleepy little facility losing most of its traffic to Logan.

[mental757]

wow - didn't take long for the Mayor to get back to fighting the runway expansion...

In the same week he basks in the glory of getting a major transportation center and all the economic benefits it will bring - and actively endorsing the whole idea - he agains questions the FAA on how they are conducting the runway study and the length of the runway...

http://warwickonline.com/warwickonline/ind...3&Itemid=30

[runawayjim]

wow - didn't take long for the Mayor to get back to fighting the runway expansion...

In the same week he basks in the glory of getting a major transportation center and all the economic benefits it will bring - and actively endorsing the whole idea - he agains questions the FAA on how they are conducting the runway study and the length of the runway...

http://warwickonline.com/warwickonline/ind...3&Itemid=30

i like the last quote of the article from the FAA environmental guy...

[DaveRPI]

haha didnt know you could play both sides like that

[Lone Ranger]

[citationx092]

haha didnt know you could play both sides like that

this is rhode island however.

[RLucas83]

Speaking as an airport consultant (Not working on any R.I. Projects/Airports however!) The FAA defines the "critical aircraft" (Design aircraft) as one conducting more than 500 annual itinerant operations per year, meaning roughly 2 daily flights. Using this assumption, Avedesian is wrong, because while it is only 3.5% of the total fleet, that 3.5% is still a respectable number.

HOWEVER Their (Warwick's) planner is bringing up good points in that If it is this one plane that is causing the runway to go longer, if the runway was a shorter length, the airline economics would use a different plane such as the 757 and could possibly adjust the frequency of service, which is a correct assumption on Warwick's part.

Runway length may be ab ego thing when talking about the other airports with over 9,000' runways that Manchester and Hartford have, and its good to see RI wanting to offer competing facilites. However, i must admit that an 8,500' runway wont hinder PVD in any way. If the airline can fly it, they will, 8,500' will get you just about anywhere.... but im still hoping for 9,350!

[citationx092]

is it going to take one of these fully loaded ERJs or mad dogs to pop an engine on takeoff roll and have to try to limp into the air for the town to get this rolling??????

[runawayjim]

i think that we have the population to support at least 2 daily flights to the west coast... as it stands, people make flights from PVD with layovers to get to the west coast... and i think we'd take some business away from logan as well...

[MikeycPVD]

i think that we have the population to support at least 2 daily flights to the west coast... as it stands, people make flights from PVD with layovers to get to the west coast... and i think we'd take some business away from logan as well...

Hell I'm trying to get to Vegas tomorrow - nonrev - on US, an airline that, at the moment, is rumored to start serving the city pairs soon but obviously doesn't...yet. That flight would do wonders, in addition to US - Phoenix, and WN to SAN, LAX, OAK. We could easily have the West Coast covered, and covered well, about as comfortably as we do Florida at the moment.

[runawayjim]

Hell I'm trying to get to Vegas tomorrow - nonrev - on US, an airline that, at the moment, is rumored to start serving the city pairs soon but obviously doesn't...yet. That flight would do wonders, in addition to US - Phoenix, and WN to SAN, LAX, OAK. We could easily have the West Coast covered, and covered well, about as comfortably as we do Florida at the moment.

southwest goes to vegas, non stop i think from providence (i could be wrong though). i plan to never fly us airways ever again. i had the absolute worst experience flying them the one time i did. i had 4 flights to atlanta, every single one of them was either delayed or cancelled. and i think there was something wrong with the pressurization of the cabins because my ears popped worse than they've ever popped and none of the flights were direct, so they didn't get as high as they normally would. and my ears didn't recover for over a day afterwards... it was painful.

[webbage]

and i think there was something wrong with the pressurization of the cabins because my ears popped worse than they've ever popped and none of the flights were direct, so they didn't get as high as they normally would. and my ears didn't recover for over a day afterwards... it was painful.

Not sure where you're getting this from, unless if it was an incredibly short flight. Even the PVD-PHL flights get near or above 30,000 feet.

[runawayjim]

Not sure where you're getting this from, unless if it was an incredibly short flight. Even the PVD-PHL flights get near or above 30,000 feet.

they don't get above 30k... they max at like 26k and only for about 5-10 min or so. i do that trip regularly.

[webbage]

they don't get above 30k... they max at like 26k and only for about 5-10 min or so. i do that trip regularly.

It depends - they don't go above 30,000 (my bad there), but they usually go between 26,000 and 28,000. Honestly, it shouldn't make too much of a difference. US Airways uses so many different aircraft that I doubt it is a specific problem to them (unless if you took the exact same flight multiple times with the same type of AC).

[runawayjim]

It depends - they don't go above 30,000 (my bad there), but they usually go between 26,000 and 28,000. Honestly, it shouldn't make too much of a difference. US Airways uses so many different aircraft that I doubt it is a specific problem to them (unless if you took the exact same flight multiple times with the same type of AC).

i honestly don't know... it was just worse than normal for me. regardless... even without that, i won't fly them anymore because of the delays i had to deal with that were completely their fault. a seat reclined too far, so it took away 4 seats on the plane. but the flight wasn't full and they could've moved passengers around. we were delayed an hour while they waited for someone to come and duct tape the seat. then as we pulled away from the gate, the idiots forgot to detach the hose connecting the plane to the gate and it just ripped off. so we were delayed another half hour while they fixed that. those 2 delays weren't because of the airport or weather or anything else. they were solely the fault of the airline.

[mental757]

the thing is, there is a process in place that addresses the environmental concern. Warwick's anti-expansion is based on nothing more than they simply want to shorten the physical length as much as they can. If the EIS comes back and finds that there is no more envirnmental harm at 9350 than there would be at 8500 - why does it matter. If 9350 is worse than they can opt to use a shorter, less harmfull length. The problem is Warwick wants the process to work backwards - study the shortest length possible to minimize the impact, while the FAA process looks at the demand length and determines how bad that is and then shortens it to reach acceptable impacts.

At the end of this don't they think that both the FAA, PVD, and airlines will want the length that gets what is needed (west coast flights) at the least expensive price - which is a runway length that is somewhere in between???

[mental757]

http://www.projo.com/westbay/content/projo...wa.34ec820.html

The FAA is going to study longer runway - period.

[runawayjim]

http://www.projo.com/westbay/content/projo...wa.34ec820.html

The FAA is going to study longer runway - period.

this is good news. hopefully the longer runway will basically be forced upon warwick.

is carcieri in support of the expansion or is he with warwick on this one?

[Recchia]

God I can't stand Avedisian. He's such a politician. Besides this, did anyone read the article in Projo today about Warwick making the top 100 cities? He brags about Warwick being the retail mecca of RI through Route 2...yeah, route 2 is really something to be proud of...