Bill Wilson

Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 10:07 a.m.

I must say, no matter what side you're on, this is a pretty interesting and for the most part, polite, thread. Amazing what can happen when the moderators stay out of it (not you Ed, you know we all love you).

Mark

Thu, Jan 21, 2010 : 9:37 a.m.

J3, It was good to hear from an acknowledged member of the local aviation community who's against this expansion. Thanks for your comments,..!!

J3

Wed, Jan 20, 2010 : 9:04 p.m.

Mark. >>If the local aviation community can bring forward a rational argument for why we need an expanded airport, when laid against all the other issues we face, I'll listen. Until then, I hope this issue dies soon as A) I'm tired of reading and hearing about it,.. and B) the city and township have much better things to worry about.

Mark

Wed, Jan 20, 2010 : 1:39 p.m.

Michael, Congratulations for again stoking the local aviation community. It's always amazing to me how a small group of people can drive an issue with such vigor and what I'll call,.. "noise!" Your comments regarding wasteful duplication are right on,... Based on Google Maps, Willow Run Airport is 10 miles away,.. exactly 10 MILES,..!! That equates to 8 to 9 minutes at freeway speeds. While Mr. Hunter and a host of others have provided a myriad of facts and figures that discuss airport design & safety issues, in my opinion, BIG DEAL! They have all failed to answer the most important question,.. Why we NEED an expanded local airport? The benefits of a successful Willow Run airport to the entire area far outweigh the benefits of an enlarged Ann Arbor airport to Ann Arbor. Anyone that thinks otherwise,.. is thinking with their "me" brain,. and not their "we" brain. Which really gets to the bottom line,.. We have a small group of people who want something, and they are vocal and willing to fight to get it. This despite the fact that we don't need it,.. and in my circles, public opinion is overwhelming against. But hey, that's what America is all about. If the local aviation community can bring forward a rational argument for why we need an expanded airport, when laid against all the other issues we face, I'll listen. Until then, I hope this issue dies soon as A) I'm tired of reading and hearing about it,.. and B) the city and township have much better things to worry about.

Polska

Tue, Jan 19, 2010 : 2:56 p.m.

Mr. Hunter. You and the rest of the Airport Advisory Cmte can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time. But of course, you can try... You say: "The current airport budget requires a small subsidy at present. If you look back at the airport budget over a couple of decades and then project into the future for some period of time you will find that overall, it does not cost the city much, and was profitable many of those years and will be in the future. The overall payback in terms of the aiport's contribution to the city/county economy is substantial. We are in a "trough" in the normal business cycle at present. Less than 5 years ago, there was a substantial waiting period to rent a hangar at the airport...100% occupancy!" REALITY: Ever since 9/11 the airport "operations" that mainly include a Cessna (Which needs only less than half of the existing runway...) practicing takeoffs and landings, are in steady decline". You even tossed in a promise for us in regards to profitability : "and will be in the future". So are you saying that oil will go below $70 per barrel??? This is almost as good as what the AAC is telling the public and the AA Council in regards to "safety" and "overruns". You say: "Hobbies and recreational choices vary among individuals...some people have cottages "up north" some operate humongous RVs or boats...some like airplanes. All airplanes are not expensive and none are "fat cat toys." Some in fact cost less than a medium sized car." Reality: FYI I am one of the fliers you mention. Yet again you continue with the same twisting the facts and lack of ability to comprehend, or even attempt to try and understand, the safety issues of recreational fliers or surrounding communities. Please enlighten me as to when was the last time a "cottages (fr)"up north" crashed on a house "down south"? I can show you plenty of cases when that occurred with aircraft during takeoff or landing. You said: "Aviation is one of the most highly regulated activities that exists...maintaining and operating an aircraft is both challenging and rewarding." Reality: Again, only part of the truth. The part that sounds good. Reality is, that as per your own FAQs, most of the flying at the airport is done under FAR part 91 (Most Pt 135 operators have gone out of business long before recent decline in business per your own FAQs). What you conveniently forget to mention is FAR pt 91, is the least regulated of all Federal Aviation Regulations. As an example, one of the crashes of an already airborne aircraft (One that had nothing to do with runway length) was that of an "experimental" aircraft. The least supervised by the FAA. Another "accident report" (If one would actually bother to look past the smoke and mirrors ) is a weekend flier trying an instrument approach below allowable weather minimums and apparently got so excited, he forgot to lower his landing gear and landed "gear up". Hence the report. Clearly, these less regulated operations pose more danger on the community. But again, this does not seem to be any of your concern. What many of us who actually enjoy flying small airplanes out of a small airport, fail to understand is why you people fail to comprehend that what you are doing will eventually hurt all of us. Enough of this nonsense. Corporate jets can and should use Willow Run. It is safer for them and safer for us here at AA. With all due respect.

lawguy

Tue, Jan 19, 2010 : 2:48 p.m.

All fine and good, Mr. Hunter. And the people who live around the airport, for the most part, are happy to subsidize the flying hobbists at the current airport. But it is when you propose unnecessarily extending the runway to attract dangerous heavier aircraft and dramatically change things, placing people's lives, their families, and their homes in jeopardy that normal rational people object. The argument then isn't about recreation any more. It is about safety and common sense. And you can't have it both ways! You want to keep the airport as it is? The community will probably keep supporting you. But if you keep pushing for a dangerous expanded airport, under Ann Arbor's current sad financial condition, you may end up with no airport at all. Because people's lives come first!

voiceofreason

Tue, Jan 19, 2010 : 2:39 p.m.

V, I actually do not have an opinion on airport expansion, because either way the effect on me will be negligible. I just believe it is ridiculous when a person uses "The cornfield across the street attracts Canadian geese" as justification to scrap a major infrastructure project. Just because the media is giving more attention to plane-goose accidents does not mean there is a recent epidemic. How many of those local airplane accidents you cited were harmful to innocent bystanders? The answer is zero. If you are going to go on a crusade for the sake of NIMBYism, that's fine. All I ask is that you contribute in a meaningful way to a robust discussion on the issue using credible arguments. Thanks.

Ray Hunter

Tue, Jan 19, 2010 : 12:10 p.m.

The Ann Arbor Airport is a part of the interstate transportation system...that is part of the reason it receives federal and state dollars for improvements. Highways, airways, railroads (Amtrack), and seaways are all part of that system and they also receive subsidies. Admittedly some receive than more than others. Would you shut down AATA because it doesn't turn a profit? The current airport budget requires a small subsidy at present. If you look back at the airport budget over a couple of decades and then project into the future for some period of time you will find that overall, it does not cost the city much, and was profitable many of those years and will be in the future. The overall payback in terms of the aiport's contribution to the city/county economy is substantial. We are in a "trough" in the normal business cycle at present. Less than 5 years ago, there was a substantial waiting period to rent a hangar at the airport...100% occupancy! Hobbies and recreational choices vary among individuals...some people have cottages "up north" some operate humongous RVs or boats...some like airplanes. All airplanes are not expensive and none are "fat cat toys." Some in fact cost less than a medium sized car. Aviation is one of the most highly regulated activities that exists...maintaining and operating an aircraft is both challenging and rewarding.

A2Realilty

Tue, Jan 19, 2010 : 9:07 a.m.

Here's the bottom line with regard to the proposed expansion: There are no safety incidents in the last 40 years that would have been prevented by increasing the length of the runway. Since there are no safety incidents, the rallying cry that the runway expansion is being done for safety reasons is completely void. If the proposal isn't really about safety, then it is about trying to attract larger aircraft and thereby provide a vague (at best) economic boost to Ann Arbor. If the perceived economic boost were a valid justification for runway expansion, then THAT should be the reason put forth. If the perceived economic boost can't stand on its own merit as a justification for the expansion of the runway, then the proposal should be killed. Expanding the runway is a ridiculous idea that is being promoted in a backhanded manner.

Polska

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 9:53 p.m.

V If you research plane crashes, you will realize that most occur during either the takeoff or landing stages, hence all the added risk of heavier and even existing aircraft will be on surrounding communities. The more I hear about this airport the more I think we should just shut it down. Or even better, convert it to a museum / amusement hangar like the Airzoo in Kalamazoo. One thing for sure, it will bring in more revenue and will benefit more of Ann Arbor taxpayers and sourounding communities. As is, the airport benefits a very small group of people and that would hardly justify the public support it is getting through our tax dollars.

Anthony Clark

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 9:07 p.m.

Commercial aviation (primarily passenger and cargo airlines) do pay more into the system than general aviation. They also place a significantly higher burden on the system. The 50 busiest airports, used almost exclusively by the airlines, receive the vast majority of federal airport funding. The 5000+ airports not served by the airlines receive comparatively little. A commercial airliner uses the full range of services on every flight. Starting at the departure airport, they must file a flight plan with the FAA, get it approved by clearance delivery, contact ground control, taxi on some very expensive taxiways, contact tower, takeoff on one of several very expensive runways, and then contact departure control. All this is monitored by well paid federal employees using sophisticated and expensive equipment. As our airliner continues on it's journey, the pilots will talk to at least one Air Route Traffic Control Center (usually several). Centers are staffed by well paid federal employees utilizing sophisticated and expensive equipment to ensure proper separation of aircraft. Now we get to our destination airport. Time to contact approach control, tune the ILS (Instrument Landing System - very expensive - there will be one on each runway), contact tower, land on the expensive runway using the expensive ILS and lighting systems, contact ground control, taxi, etc. Contrast that to a typical general aviation flight. I'll be flying VFR (visual flight rules) in good weather so no flight plan is required. My departure and destination airports will be small facilities with a tiny fraction of the equipment and infrastructure of the air carrier airports. I contact Ann Arbor ground control, taxi, contact tower (usually the same person as ground control), takeoff, fly to my destination without using any air traffic services, land at the small non-towered airport (no tower or ground control to contact, no ILS), taxi to a parking spot, and unload my own bags. If my departure airport didn't have a tower (most small airports don't have one), I would use no air traffic services at all. So, yeah, the airlines pay 95% of the cost of a system that they use 95% of. Us private flyers pay for the 5% that we use through fuel taxes and licensing fees.

voiceofreason

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 8:36 p.m.

I have never seen so many Straw Man arguments and outright lies/fabrications given in the name of NIMBYism. After reading the post by "V", I am now convinced that everyone within a 20 mile radius of the airport will be dead within five years if this expansion takes place.

lawguy

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 3:49 p.m.

A few additional clarifications are in order because the Ann Airport Airport FAQs quoted above contain misleading, if not erroneous, information...Mr. Ray Hunter's first posting suggests that there is no way aircraft heavier than 12,500 pounds would be attracted to an expanded Ann Arbor Municipal Airport and that we have nothing to worry about as a result. If that is true, why did Ann Arbor airport leaders -- of which Mr. Hunter is one as a member of its Airport Advisory Committee -- raise the airport's weight limit from 20,000 pounds to 45,000 and 75,000 pounds in the latest approved federal Airport Layout Plan? Perhaps they are planning to host episodes of the television program "The Biggest Loser," but it is far more likely the added weight is to handle the heavier aircraft an expanded runway would permit. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. Hunter. As for Mr. Hunter's second posting, that the city's financial contribution to any airport expansion comes only from airport operating funds, derived only from airport operations -- not taxpayers, it is important to note that the airport has lost money from operations in seven of the last ten years. Most recently, in the year ending in June 2009, the airport lost almost $ 92,000. The city (which means Ann Arbor taxpayers) had to transfer $ 127,000 from its general fund to cover that loss, provide airport working capital, and subsidize the airport's cash flow to keep its head above water so it could have cash to operate. While some Ann Arbor residents struggle to keep their homes and pay taxes, their tax dollars are being taken to subsidize the city's portion of this unnecessary and dangerous wasteful project. This is government at its worst! The airport FAQs or Mr. Hunter do not tell you that.

clan

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 3:29 p.m.

The airport offers convenience to owners of aircraft, whether used for work or just as very expensive toys. Without it they would have a long and difficult drive all the way over to Willow Run in order to reach the wild blue yonder. How sad. For the rest of us, it is the most blighting land use anywhere around here. We could easily figure out how to survive without it. It is often said that the best defense is a good offense. Why don't our elected officials adopt an exit strategy for the airport? Perhaps it should serve only aircraft that do not require a runway, such as blimps and helicopters. Since that would only require a few acres, there are all kinds of possibilities for using the rest. The existing paved runway might be great for art fairs. People could park in the adjacent grass. There could be a running track so that streets would not have to be closed up for running events.

jondhall

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 9:43 a.m.

Close the Airport! settled, settled! Why debate this issue we are in a near Communist China State, just close the damn thing! Is should have been closed many years back when they moved the Fireworks, that was the only reason to have it there. If you want to fly in there to "impress" someone then fly to Willow run ten minuted away not 20 minuted away. WWOD! What would Obama Do? Next issue?

Ray Hunter

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 8:02 a.m.

Snapshot suggests local taxpayer dollars will be used to subsidize fat cat airplane owners insurance premiums. The origin of tax dollars used to fund airport improvements is largely federal and state (97.5%). Reference Ann Arbor Airport frequently asked questions (FAQs), page 34, ECON 1. These FAQs are reproduced for everyones convenience. http://www.a2gov.org/government/publicservices/fleetandfacility/Airport/Documents/Runway%20FAQ%20-%20technical%20042709.pdf ECON 1: What is the source of revenue used to pay for airport improvements? The environmental assessment study and airport improvements are 97.5% funded from federal and state sources. The Citys remaining 2.5% funding comes from the airports operating budget which is an enterprise fund comprised solely of revenue generated by airport operations. Depending on the amount needed to make airport improvements and subject to City Council approval, the airport may also borrow capital funds and repay borrowed funds from future airport operating budgets. As an example, if a capital improvement is estimated to cost $1.0 million, federal and state sources would supply $975,000, the airports portion would be $25,000. The following is paraphrased from a recent transportation study titled Transportation Solutions: A Report on Michigans Transportation Needs and Funding Alternatives, prepared by The Michigan Transportation Funding Task Force. Federal funding for all airport improvements comes from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF). The AATF is derived from passenger ticket taxes (66%), cargo taxes, commercial aviation fuel taxes, and noncommercial aviation fuel tax (7%) General Fund revenue and interest (27%). State funding for the project would come from the State Aeronautics Fund (SAF) and is used in conjunction with local revenue to match available federal aid. The SAF receives revenue from license, permit, and registration fees. State sales tax at the rate of six percent of the retail price is levied on sales of aviation fuel and other aircraft related purchases. Aircraft Insurance: For a good summary explanation of how aircraft hull, property and liability insurance premiums are determined, turn to the FAQs at the website of among the worlds largest aviation insurance underwriters, AVEMCO. Excerpt from AVEMCO aviation insurance FAQ website addressing how aircraft premiums are determined. http://www.avemco.com/Page/FAQs-OwnedAircraft.aspx#thirteen Q: What factors do insurance companies use to determine my premium? A: Each insurance company uses different criteria to determine your premium. Some of the most common factors include logged flight experience, aircraft make and model, limits of coverage, whether the aircraft is hangared, possessing an instrument rating, claims-free experience, deductible, and how the aircraft is used. The insurance company then applies prior experience in these various "classes" of business to predict future results, and the premium is determined.

Thick Candy Shell

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 1:17 a.m.

I don't know why my last comment was removed. I just wanted to point out that I was at an Airport Advisory Meeting in 1992 going over the expansion plans and the Manager of the airport went into detail of the planned expansion.

Thick Candy Shell

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 1 a.m.

I know for a fact from many pilots and many family members that this expansion has been planned from the 70's. In addition, I was at an Advisory Commission Meeting in 1993 that had the plans available. If anyone really questions this, don't look locally, go to the FAA. This expansion will take place because the FAA wants it. Sorry that @A2Realilty doesn't like it, but I was there! The Airport Manager spoke in detail about moving State St. if needed.

lawguy

Mon, Jan 18, 2010 : 12:03 a.m.

Anthony Clark's posting would have you believe the millions of dollars that would be spent on this unnecessary and dangerous runway expansion come from usage and fuel fees paid by recreational pilots, that they are basically reinvesting their own money. In fact, an examination of the federal Airport and Airways Trust Fund shows that 72 percent of the funds come from the transportation tax paid by everyday travelers every time we purchase an airplane ticket. That's the tax added on to every airplane ticket we buy. Another 19 percent of the trust fund comes from fees paid by commercial airlines that use international air facilities. So we pay those fees in the price of our air fares. The fuel taxes referred to by Mr. Clark -- in total -- contribute a paltry 5 percent of the total trust fund. So Mr. Clark and his fellow fliers should take their recreational hobby and put it in perspective -- economic, safety, legal, and reality. And they should thank the rest of us for supporting their recreational pasttime. (I know of few hobbies where you can tax others to pay 95 percent of your capital costs!) But we are not about to risk our lives to permit their recreational fun on a longer and more dangerous runway without a serious examination of the issues. Everyone else should do the same. When you do, you will see this expansion proposal poses serious risk to human lives to people living near the airport, tens of millions in potential legal liability for the city, and only mythical safety benefits. Check the facts! The ridiculous nature of this proposal becomes obvious.

Al

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 11:46 p.m.

Anthony. >>I am sick and tired of the bashing that 'private aviation' is taking from the press and general public. Private pilots are people just like you. We use airplanes (privately owned as well as rented) just like you use the family car.

Al

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 11:34 p.m.

To all the airport Cheerleaders. 1. 81% of over 1300 voters oppose the airport in the AA.com poll. 2. If the city off AA wants to operate a larger airport, they can do it within the Ann Arbor city limit. 3. I own a house at AA, yet I can not use the silly argument you guys keep repeating, in order to stop all progress around my house, "'cuz I was here first". Think about it! OK, let me help; You guys are actually using the dumbest argument of them all: Since the airport was here prior to many subdivisions, you people actually expect that Pittsfield Twp. would stop building around the airport, just because AA bought this land for ***water rights***??? Again, would the city of AA act in a similar manner since I owned my house before many who built around me? I doubt it. 4. The Ann Arbor Airport airspace and approach corridor according to MI aviation ***law*** expandsoutside the airport boundaries and into neighboring Pittsfield Twp. communities, yet the ***safety of these communities did not even enter your thought process*** In conclusion; What you people fail to realize is that if you keep on pushing, you may end up with increased opposition to this unnecessary project and possibly even more opposition to the airport period. The city of AA bought this land for its water rights, not to operate an airport. No professional safety minded pilot, will use ARB even if the runway was extended. Willow Run is a much better choice. ARB is perfect for what it is, a small single engine airport for weekend fliers. Keep ARB as is.

Anthony Clark

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 11:22 p.m.

Ann Arbor Airport, with or without a runway extension, cannot possibly duplicate or detract from services provided by Willow Run and Detroit Metro. That is like saying a small neighborhood grocery store in Chelsea duplicates and detracts from a big box supercenter in Ann Arbor. Or that a parking lot in Ypsilanti duplicates a parking structure in Ann Arbor. Willow Run and Metro serve commercial aviation - large scheduled passenger and cargo jets. For a non-aviation analogy, think commercial buses and semi-trucks (big rigs). Ann Arbor Municipal serves private aviation - small propeller driven airplanes and light jets. Non-aviation analogy, the family car. Willow Run also serves private planes that are going to the Ypsilanti or Belleville area. Ann Arbor Municipal serves private planes going to Ann Arbor. Again, the family car is a perfect analogy. If you are taking a trip in your car to Mason, you don't park in Lansing. I am sick and tired of the bashing that 'private aviation' is taking from the press and general public. Private pilots are people just like you. We use airplanes (privately owned as well as rented) just like you use the family car. We take trips to Grandma's house, we take weekend vacations, we meet with business associates and clients. We fly for recreation the way many other people go boating or golfing. Just like you, some of us are rich, but most of us are not. We're not fat cats benefiting at your expense, we pay our fare share. The national aviation system is like the national highway system. Both are paid for by those who use the system in the form of fuel taxes. So no one is subsidizing my flying activity. Snapshot, it is very unlikely that aircraft insurance rates will be going down, but if it does happen it certainly won't be at taxpayer expense.

A2Realilty

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 9:38 p.m.

Think Candy Shell - Others have already done this research. Go back to the last article written about this - regarding the petition I believe - and you can find the information you are seeking. This expansion talk is ridiculous.

Thick Candy Shell

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 9:03 p.m.

@A2Reality..."The airport wasn't supposed to be expanded, as was determined the last time that this issue was reviewed by the city council." Correct me if I am wrong, but the subdivision in question was built early 90's. The talk of Airport expansion has been around since the mid 70's. I have seen the proposed drawings showing a longer run way and the cross wind runway paved from at the latest 1990.

A2Realilty

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 8:48 p.m.

There is NO DATA that supports that an increased length of runway would improve any safety aspects of the airport. If you feel that the longer runway would make the airport safer, please cite the specific accidents that have occurred in the last 40 years at the Ann Arbor Airport that a longer runway would have prevented. I can save you some time: the answer is that there aren't any. THAT is why the author of this opinion piece is referring to it as a "STEALTH" effort. To imply that this is necessary for safety reasons is ridiculous. There are no safety incidents that a longer runway would have prevented. If it is all about safety, then lets draft an agreement that says that no planes larger than those that currently use the airport will use the airport if the runway is lengthened. Clearly, if such a stipulation is added, then it will add validity to the claim that it is truly about SAFETY and not beginning to service business jets. I don't live near the airport, but anyone who is claiming that a homeowner in the region needs to just shut up and take it because there was already an airport present when their home was built is being an idiot. The airport wasn't supposed to be expanded, as was determined the last time that this issue was reviewed by the city council. If a "NIMBY" person wanted the existing airport demolished or reduced, then that is not fair and a "NIMBY" cry is valid. If a homeowner in that region doesn't want to see the airport EXPANDED, then that is a perfectly legitimate right. Lastly, this expansion will generate ZERO jobs of any significance for Ann Arbor and is a waste of money.

seldon

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 6:58 p.m.

You guys knew there was an airport there when you moved in next to it. We all know you'd like to shut it down and turn it into a dog park or something, but it was there before you, so suck it up.

snapshot

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 6:31 p.m.

You aviators just want to lower your insurance rates for your aircraft at taxpayer expense. If you're concerned about your safety, well, you wouldn't be flying in and out of the airport to begin with if one in ten of you were dying every year. So stop with the safety rhetoric. On the other hand, the opposition has only become concerned when there is a possibility of these planes flying over "their" homes. If they expand the airport, I'll get less traffic over my home due to a change in approach but I'll be subsidizing the insurance rates for you fat cat aviators. Since I think if you want to fly, you should pay for your own "Piper" I say nay to expansion and I'll not change my angle of attack.

Mike D.

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 5:56 p.m.

The NIMBY folks' irrational fears of a jet crash near the airport would be humorous if they weren't so selfish. Ann Arbor needs a safer airport, and there is no data to suggest that a longer runway would endanger the lives of people living near the airport.

pbspirit

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 5:44 p.m.

I know a couple of people in the aviation community who are VERY MUCH opposed to this expansion. It is needless. While I do value pilot lives, the current airport has a spotless record. The neighbors who are affected most have little power to change this process. Apparently it is being decided by Ann Arbor residents/government and the nearby subdivisions are part of Pittsfield Twp. I wish to echo the valid concerns of needless noise and air pollution that will result from the increased size of aircraft that will be using the larger runways. This airport expansion is a terrible idea.

Ray Hunter

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 3:17 p.m.

The author of the Op Ed article appearing in todays issue of annarbor.com states that the 800 runway safety margin extension project currently in the environmental assessment stage is a stealth study. How he came to this conclusion is puzzling in light of the public process involved in the project. He further states that increasing the runway from 3,500 x 75 to 4,300 x 75 will cause a duplication of air transportation services and will compete with operators at the airport at Willow Run. Willows (4) runways are designed to handle large business class jets and cargo transport planes which cannot operate from either a 3,500 or the proposed 4,300 runway. Please go to the Ann Arbor Airport web site where there is a group of frequently asked questions or FAQs. See OPS 19, 20, 21 and ECON 17, 18, 19 for factual answers to questions why the proposed Ann Arbor improvement is not a threat to and not any competition for large (more than 12,500 lbs.) aircraft operations at Willow Run. The FAQs are duplicated below in this response. It is simply inaccurate to suggest that a safety improvement at the Ann Arbor Airport will cause undue competition with airports located in the Detroit Aerotropolis. The aerotropolis consists of the Detroit Metropolitan Airport and the Willow Run Airport. Improvements have been made at other local airports without detracting from economic development of the aerotropolis, e.g., Oakland County International (Pontiac 6,200 x 150), Livingston County (Howell 5,002 x 100), and Lenawee County (Adrian 5,001 x 100). Research of airplanes in Janes All the Worlds Aircraft, by Paul Jackson, identifies airplane makes and models of the aerotropolis category that can and do land at these large airports surrounding Washtenaw County and will continue not being able to use the Ann Arbor Airport even after adding the 800 runway safety margin extension. In order for the Ann Arbor Airport to be able to have any effect on the Detroit Aerotropolis, its runway would have to be many times greater than 4,300 x 75. Greater separation of runway from taxiway would be required. The weight bearing capacity of the runway, taxiway, and ramp would need to be increased. The airport would also require installation of a precision instrument approach. The parking ramp would require expansion to accommodate greater separation of planes as well as clearance from the airport terminal. Large maintenance hangars would be required along with construction of semi-truck/trailer cargo loading and unloading infrastructure. To protect theses assets and the public an on-airport fire station with fire-fighting equipment and full time staff would be needed. I could go on and on and mention the requirement for a US. Customs station, an aircraft deicing facility (already prohibited); and construction of emergency roadways. Without these minimum support infrastructure improvements, Ann Arbor cannot compete with or duplicate the Detroit Aerotropolis. ARB project FAQs http://www.a2gov.org/government/publicservices/fleetandfacility/Airport/Documents/Runway%20FAQ%20-%20technical%20042709.pdf OPS 19: Does the City have any plans to attract air traffic from Willow Run Airport? No. The City of Ann Arbor has not nor will it ever have plans of attracting any air traffic from Willow Run Airport. The City of Ann Arbor understands and agrees Willow Run Airport is an excellent nearby facility and encourages large airplanes to use that facility. The City has determined Willow Run possesses the ideal runway lengths, ground services and an airport environment better suited for its many large plane users. ARB does not have the infrastructure or ground services to accommodate large planes already being served by Willow Run Airport and has no plans to create this infrastructure or provide these ground services. OPS 20: What ground services are needed to support Part 25 certificated airplane operations? In OPS #5 we learned that Part 25 certificated airplanes tend to be the larger multiengine turbopropeller and turbojet powered airplanes used as corporate/business aircraft. These aircraft typically utilize airports that provide adequate services such as ground power units, jet A fuel services, waste disposal/pumping services, transient hangar spaces, deicing fluid and application equipment (trucks and sprayers), catering services, and crew services (crew lounge, crew car, etc.). These airports typically have longer runways, crosswind runways, 24 hour FAA tower, precision ILS approaches, Customs and extensive maintenance facilities. OPS 21: What services are available at Willow Run Airport that is not available at ARB? Willow Run Airport offers longer runways, multiple runways, crosswind runways, 24 hour FAA tower, precision ILS approaches, Customs, catering service, crew services, deicing operations, ground power units and extensive maintenance facilities. ARB offers none of these services or infrastructure that is attractive and frequently required for most corporate/business aircraft. ECON 17: What is an aerotropolis? Excerpt from Detroit Regional Aerotropolis website. An Aerotropolis is an emerging type of urban form comprised of aviationintensive businesses and those businesses that need to be readily connected to their customers. These businesses, and related enterprises, extend outward from a major airport. Aerotropolis have emerged across the globe in the 21st century as air transportation has become a vital component of business operations. http://www.detroitregionaerotropolis.com/ ECON 18: Is the City of Ann Arbor and/or Ann Arbor Municipal Airport a partner or affiliated with Detroit Regional Aerotropolis? No. The City of Ann Arbor and its airport are not partners nor affiliated with the Detroit Regional Aerotropolis. According to the Detroit Regional Aerotropolis website, its partners are: Local Communities City of Belleville City of Romulus City of Taylor City of Ypsilanti Airports Detroit Metropolitan Airport Willow Run Airport Private & NonProfit Partners Huron Charter Township Detroit Renaissance Van Buren Charter Township Southeast Michigan Council of Government Ypsilanti Charter Township Detroit Regional Chamber Washtenaw County Next Energy Wayne County UPS DTE Energy Walbridge http://www.detroitregionaerotropolis.com/partners.htm#local ECON 19: Will ARB compete with YIP for aerotropolis air freight operations? No. The type of aircraft used in aerotropolis related commercial business activities will be operated under FAA Part 135 and 121 rules. ARB runway, taxiway and all other infrastructure is physically inadequate to support these types of commercial activities. More importantly, it would be a violation of FAA rules to operate large airplanes of the magnitude and scope supporting aerotropolis (Part 135 and 121) operations from ARB.

heresmine

Sun, Jan 17, 2010 : 2:10 p.m.

Obviously written by someone who's not a member of the aviation community.