Once sputtering, Chandler airport expected to take off in 2012

7 comments:

• Titan76 posted at 10:48 am on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.

  Posts: 1

  In 1990, we purchased a home about 2 miles from Scottsdale airport. At that time, the airport was very similar to Chandler in that it served small (mostly propeller driven) aircraft. The residence had no problems with the airport. However, in the mid-90's, the city "leaders" and airport special interest came up with a plan to grow the airport and surrounding business community. Within a short time, the quiet neighborhoods turned into light (and now heavy) jet traffic......at all hours of the day AND NIGHT. It's had a definite negative impact on our property values and our peace and quiet .....and we are nowhere close to the path of the runway. Unless you want this to happen to you, don't support this "good for Chandler" expansion garbage. It's all an self serving illusion.

  • Link

   

• Dale Whiting posted at 3:23 pm on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.

  Posts: 3705

  Titian76,

  Spoken like the truely ignorant victim you are!

  Sure you got hirt. Sure you suffer from development decisions made by your City's planners, developers and city council. But that just can't happen here! Chandler's expansion plans can't mirror those of Scottsdale. Even if we do go for a modest runway lengthening, an unlikely prospect, it will only permit those aircraft which now land safely in the cooler months to land equally safely in the hot summer months. You know, business is four-seasonal and hot AZ summers do restrict the larger private aircraft from landing in that heat on our comparatively short runway!

  Look off the runway's end to the northeast of CHD [Chandler's 3 letter Airport designation]. There isn't any housing for at least two miles. Mostly it's freeway, freeway shopping centers and automobile dealerships! Look to the southwest. The housing density is modest and already experiences much of the sorts of "noise" that it would experience after growth. We will not see anything like the sorts of heavier aircraft choosing to land at CHD as choose to land at Scottsdale and now Gateway. It can't happen. CHD's runways are just too thin to carry the weight! And as demonstrated by First Solar's choosing Gateway, CHD doesn't have the off field space for the truely big boys.

  Now, Mackay's point about a new FBO is a good one. In too much of a rush to develop an FBO, the city made representations to one of its on field businesses inducing it to qualify for FBO status. In its inducements the City omitted such things as an FBO lounge and traditional concierge taxi services. But it did get expanded fuel service, then choose to remain in competition with the FBO's fuel service. Food, though good, is limited to a small cafe co-located with the FBO. And the lounge facilities are provided at the City's terminal building. Between the current FBO and the terminal building, Chandler has what it needs. But things can improve.

  How? Get the city off of the airfield and have the current FBO take over running the City's terminal. The city employees now working on field are overpaid in comparison to private employees working at many other fields. Problem is, the FBO is not interested it taking on more responsibility. It's been burnt once! Where so, find another FBO. Several on field operators have expressed some limited interest!

  Thanks to our fair city's decisions, CHD has been stuck in neutral. Hopefully Mackay can find the gear shifter and get things moving forward. The porposed plan seems headed in that direction. But she probably misses one vital point, improving relations with those few voting citizen neighbors living off to the southwest! No improved relations means no runway expansion! It's that simple, folks!

  Falcon Field has it better. Williams Gateway has it much better and is developing. Scottsdale has it much better, too. Why even Glendale is a model of good city planning and good FBO cooperation [good though not quite perfect].

  Dale Whiting,
  Member, Chandler Industrial Development Authority
  Writing individually and not in any representative capacity
  [But I know what I'm writing about]

  • Link

   

• azpidge posted at 6:08 pm on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.

  Posts: 2

  Titan76, you have a sharp tough. Ignorant victim is a little strong. Don't kid yourself. I get the feeling you have not been a resident of Chandler all that long, or you have a vested interest in that runway. The lengthening of the runways has been voted down three times I believe. I hope the residence of Chandler and those within the confines of the developement district understand that a city developement team will eliminate the need for another vote on a runway expansion. Complaisant residence in the Sun Lakes community need to pay attention. The runway length is intended to to limit bigger aircraft. A 16 passenger aircraft is a lot of airplane. The Mayor just asked if there were "any questions".

  • Link

   

• Dale Whiting posted at 6:54 pm on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.

  Posts: 3705

  ?azpidge?

  I don't follow your logic or your position. Titan76 is against airport development, not in favor of it. So how is it you read into his comment that he has a vested interest? Our current FBO has an interest in attracting year round business. Pumping gas heavily for only 8 months of the year is a bit hard on his employees. He'd like to keep them busy year round. And where Chandler has invested a bit of dough in CHD to stimulate business, ought we not do it to please all? When every cost is accounted for and when every stimulating business benefit is measured or thoughtfully estimated, CHD makes money for Chandler.

  And yes, the runway extension has been voted down repeatedly. That's why I suggest that the City improve relations with CHD's surrounding neighbors. Some on the field businessmen thought that the ordnance requiring a vote to lengthen the runway would be something the FAA would fight, costing the City perhaps $100,000 in legal fees. But it would appear that the FAA will not act.

  Costs to lengthen the runway [or for that matter any on field improvement which is a part of the airport's FAA approved General Plan], are paid for 95% by the Federal and State Governments. [Or is that 95% feds and 2.5% State, I forget which it is.] So having a bond election to approve of a relatively modest amount of money appears to be a political shurking of responsibility. But it looks like the FAA is reluctant to weigh in.

  So perhaps those runway extension enthusiasts ought to suck up to their neighbors? Wha'da you say John W.? Was I not right all along? Your FAA trump card appears to have been worthless. Not unlike State Farm, you need to become a good neighbor!

  • Link

   

• azpidge posted at 7:48 am on Mon, Mar 12, 2012.

  Posts: 2

  I am sorry. I posted in response to Mr. Whiting. The solution to noise, the air traffic danger from more "touch and goes", more larger aircraft, the ever present noise of low flying helos and planes in the pattern at low altitude is probably some where between what Titan76 and what Mr. Whiting are saying. I have lived within the footprint of the airport for a long time and have watched and listened to the changes. Developement for the city is a good thing, but there are many neighborhoods and schools that will remain down range when the runways are expanded and the airport becomes more commercial. Mr. Whiting has NO compassion for the residence. "Self serving" is appropriate here. The city has given huge tax break insentives to build and corporate/political fund raising will turn a blind eye to the residence true quality of life. Do not be complaisant !

  • Link

   

• loubator posted at 12:14 pm on Mon, Mar 12, 2012.

  Posts: 95

  I am absolutely amazed at the responses to the article on this forum. The spelling, syntax, grammatical errors and use of incorrect words is astounding, in each of the responses! At the very least, learn the difference between the words residence and residents. There are several more gems in there, see if you can find them. An education is a wonderful thing, folks...you're (not your) never too old to learn!

  • Link

   

• Dale Whiting posted at 2:52 pm on Mon, Mar 12, 2012.

  Posts: 3705

  azpidge,

  Let's take a closer look at what you are not saying. You mention noise and danger. The "touch and goes" are a function of pilot training. We have several pilot schools at CHD. Lengthening the runway will not change that. Nor will business expansion. It's a function of supply and demand for pilots. I am aware of three such schools at CHD [there may be a fourth], one for helicopters. We have a nation wide significant shortage of helicopter pilots. I understand that we have only two helo schools in the valley. I suspect that those neighbors who are complaining about low flying helicopters have a point to make. But the training pilots report to the school's owner that they are maintaining both altitude and pattern requirements. Yet since the airport administrator has admitted that the processing of noise complaints by his staff's is their lowest priority [this admitted to both me and the last noise study referee] that point is not going to be made. This admission was swept under the table in that lastest noise study and was not reported to the FAA! It was dismissed despite his and my insistence that it be addressed.

  The second set of issues, down range hazzards and schools, are mentioned. Please name one school that concerns you. The noise study looked at all and found none to be relevant. While I have it on reasonable authority that planes can and do crash everywhere, if the patterns are maintained, no schools will be overflown, not a one! Last I heard, we were supposed to be applying for a special radar set which would identify location and altitude of all planes nearby such that no one in the tower would be burdened to track this data. But I suspect that got dropped, too.

  I proposed to the neighbors that they become educated on identifying low flying aircraft, both to altitute and location visavis the pattern. None took me up on this idea.

  You say I lack compassion! Well I used to meet regularly with the major local neighborhood group. But they lost interest in addressing the foregoing issues. I have plenty of compassion and would work with any who would remain organized and work with me. But at last count, that number was ZERO. There is fault on both sides of these issues. While the "on field" businessmen are rather well organized and much better informed of technical issues, the neighbors remain disorganized, confused and appear to not be making any sense. But they do vote! And that is why the runway will not be lengthened!

  You see, it's easy to complain, harder to do so with facts, and hardest to respond when the politicians are not listening. Good luck, Ms. Mackay, you'll be needing it! But until you make some sense out of these issues, your elected city officials will be avoiding anything controversial like supporting a modest runway extension.

  • Link