The Inspector wrote:
StudeDave wrote:
You'd think the least they could do is find a picture that is ACTUALLY of Lindbergh Field... 
How do they think a few extra flights are gonna push Boeing out? and I suspect that 'Squatch must be a family friend or relative since he lists his location as Seattle and not Mukilteo.
Despite the Inspector's vivid imagination, I'm not related to anyone in SOC, in any way.
Basically, my interest is in the county and FAA following the letter of the law. The FAA declared "no impacts", so no EIS required. You're all grown adults; you tell me...do airliners have an effect on noise, pollution, parking, surrounding roads and infrastructure (water, sewer increases due to increased human presence due to airline terminals), etc.? If you think "yes", then you'd have to agree the airlines bear a responsibility to mitigate those impacts. The FAA, by ruling "no impacts", is saying that airline presence has absolutely no impact, so all costs born by mitigation must be borne by local governments and local taxpayers. Maybe I'm just stupid, but I believe this is just another abdication of fiscal responsibility by the federal government and big business, but that's just me. I'm not anti-business nor anti-airline; I just believe a business--airline or otherwise--that wishes to start up in any area should bear the costs of doing so without further taxing the local taxpayers, that's all. And the reason Boeing takes a "no opinion" stance on this issue is that it involves its customers, so they always take that opinion to avoid the perception of favoritism, etc. But a good example of how airline activity might negatively impact Boeing can be seen all over the field. As of my last count during the summer, Boeing had in excess of 65 airplanes tied-down in every nook and cranny of the airport--mostly 787s awaiting change incorporation activities. Most of the surrounding taxiways and apron areas were--and to a large degree, still are--full of Boeing commercial aircraft awaiting rework before they can fly away. Had there been robust airline activity at the airport, this space would not have been available to Boeing, so they would have been forced to fly the birds to other areas for storage, incurring increased costs to Boeing--who have already been publicizing the fact that they believe Washington is costing them too much to do business here, and have been floating ideas of moving the business elsewhere. While Allegiant Air intends to start with only a few flights, as the Inspector has mentioned above in regards to to their activities at Bellingham Airport, this is only their "foot in the door", and their intent is to grow the buisiness...with the subsequent costs also borne by the local governments. When their business--and the other airlines that are sure to follow do the same--it definitely WILL have an impact on Boeing's operations and push the airport farther from a high tech and warbird and general aviation base towards a commercial airline airport; something nobody in this area wants except the developers who profit from the airlines. Naturally--like the Inspector--they do not live here, yet have plenty of opinions on how things should happen here. For more info, try these links and see for yourself:
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/morn ... not-a.htmlhttp://www.painefield.com/ea/Appendix/A ... tter_W.pdfhttp://www.heraldnet.com/article/201205 ... /705299947http://kpbj.com/business_daily/2012-12- ... ne_flightshttp://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news ... rcial.html
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Nice cheap flights to Vegas without having to go down to Denver International.
