Flight to nowhere
Flight to nowhere
view story
Tags:
Fri Dec 14, 2007 07:42:59 CST
Viewed 694 times
0 responses 46 comments
| Reply or Comment | Send to a Friend | Report a Violation |
Mon Dec 17, 2007 09:14:29 CST
Observer,How many truck stops does Victoria have? How many in the area around Victoria?
I think you make some good points and let me be clear, I have nothing to gain or loose in this discussion. See, I'm an out of towner with an interest in Victoria since my wife has family there. If someone really wanted to be technical about it Victoria regional airport is competition for my home airport(s).
I'm chiming into the discussion because I've been around this block a few times over the years and have seen what happens when someone comes in and gets a grand idea to close an airport and make it a shopping mall, housing development or whatever.
The point of what I've said all along is this: Victoria needs that airport for the future, It may not look like it now but that airport can play a vital role in what type of industry comes to Victoria (I may explain in detail in a later post). However you cannot sustain the airport with just one airline. It just won't happen.
I support what they are trying to do but like Texican and I have said more needs to be done and at a faster rate.
Austin closed two airports within a month of each other back in 2000. Dell bought one of them to (from what I hear) fly parts directly into the factory. The other closed and moved some number of miles up the road, slightly out of town.
When this happened it created a void in the infrastructure that Austin had. The airport that Dell bought is now a shopping center, the other that closed is a hospital and shopping center.
The city and state of Texas are now hard pressed to replace those with a new airport that come to find out is much needed. It has taken a private investor to come in and buy land to start building one. See, what no one saw was how crowded the three in the area would become.
Now you make be thinking thats Austin and Victoria is not that big is does not need it... But what really happens is this: You close a group of airports nation wide and the whole system suffers.
The problem with airlines being on time is not air traffic control, solely the weather or security. Its runway capacity. There simply are not enough runways to allow all the flights that need to get in and out time to do so. This is where Victoria can come in. Whats already there is enough but it needs to be maintained.
The city needs to market it and really push it. People can't have it both ways, you can't shut off the valve of the system then complain about how long you wait in line or lack of options to fly from here to there. Victoria could be a reliever airport to Houston or even San Antonio if the city wanted. But first you have to bring in businesses that will generate interest and capital into the airport.
Sun Dec 16, 2007 22:01:51 CST
Victoria is a grounded city. If you don't believe that, look at how many car dealerships are on Navarro. Why such an automotove influence for such a small town ? Do you know how used cars get here ? By train and truck.....both of which are on the ground. I've got my $$$$$$ ready to invest in trucking. Bye bye airport.Devil's Advocate: Suppose they get the grant and all the upgrades are made. They promote the hell out of it with no difference than the present results and the grant funding is a failure. Then what ? Fluffing the numbers now DOES NOT CHANGE the actual lack of utilization of the exact same airport terminal after a million dollar upgrade ! If the need is not there then it's not, people. The pilots and airport folks chiming in here of course will be for it for their best interests. Or to support aviation in general which I think is great. But if the first grant passes and the numbers are still dead....guess what people. The NEXT million or so upgrades will be taxpayers' money from a bond issue. Up everyone's taxes for what reason again ? Victoria has an automotive influence of the likes of South Houston. Hell 2 bit car salesmen are buying up Navarro as we speak. I waited at the light for three auto carriers coming into town. Did we REALLY need another car lot at the Ryan's property ? Sheesh.
Sun Dec 16, 2007 20:41:36 CST
I checked Waco's facts. They are twice the size of Victoria (120,000 vs just over 60,000), and do have a four year university. Those are two HUGE differences! And I don't really see Victoria doubling in size in the next 20 years.I agree an airport could be a great asset, but only after we grow our industrial and distribution base. I'm advocating dropping support for the airport, only that we concentrate on adding industry and not just giving "free flights to nowhere".
Hey! Why not fly to Houston and do your Christmas shopping! Oh crap, that would bring up another problem.......
Sun Dec 16, 2007 17:23:34 CST
Right Rudder, your points are vaild. Light industry and manufacturing should be lured to Victoria and the airport would be the ideal location. Not the ghost town that is the Lone Tree industrial park (what a waste of taxpayers money that has been) Unfortunately, VEDC seems to waste time and money on Toyota and other non-realistic ventures. Build this type of infrastructure around the airport and the airport will thrive.
Sun Dec 16, 2007 16:10:14 CST
As I've said before Victoria has a lot of promise, not just the airport but as a city. With the right sales pitch there should be no reason why a few good companies could move to the airport and create a lot of good jobs.Manufacturing (aviation and non aviation)
Aviation sales
Aircraft maintenance
Flight Training (could be partnered with Victoria college)
Research and development
These are just a few of the industries that could be brought into a well maintained airport. Lets not forget about the construction jobs that would be created by the airport.
Getting a air carrier is just one, singular type of industry. It's very fair weathered as well. You really want to get the airport into a position as a revenue generator, Having one airline is not going to do that. It does not matter at all how many flights that airline has going in and out, Until the city decides to really market the airport we will continue to have these debates.
One thing is for sure, Those that want to close it and make another truck stop or what ever should be careful what you ask for you just might get it.
And to answer the question as to why Victoria can't have the same carrier service as other cities? The above is the reason. In order to really have a viable carrier service you need a larger terminal and reasons for people to come to victoria
Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:22:30 CST
Good points Texican. let me also add that I have flown into towns in other states that have commuter servcice that only had about 20,000 population. They had a nice, well managed airport that served as a hub for the surrounding area. Any reason why Victoria shouldn't have the same
Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:08:29 CST
Bighorn: Waco is just over 100,000 (a number I suspect isn't too far in the future for Victoria) and has daily scheduled flights by two major airlines express carriers. And, they're building a new terminal. Trust me, I've lived in Waco. About the only thing they have that Victoria doesn't is a 4-year university. What do you propose to do once Victoria hits that size and daily flights become more, as many here would argue, viable? Since several here have proposed developing the airport property for light industry, I'll remind you of the point that once you close an airport, you can't get it back. Who's going to scream the loudest when we need to spend the funds to build a new airport after some short-sighted louse decides to develop it? I can venture some guesses.
Sat Dec 15, 2007 22:07:24 CST
Let's face it, folks Victoria is just simply too small and too close to major airports for ours to be much more than a "muny". The fact that one can drive to Houston, SA, or Austin quicker than you can connect to another airline out of Victoria should be message enough.Corpus, while much, much larger than Victoria is struggling to keep jet service and connections. Until such time as we grow to 200,000 people I would expect that an airport with regular service is a pipe dream.
Check Abilene, San Angelo, Amarillo, or Midland. They have some of the same issues and are much larger than Victoria. Let's face the who we are, and where we are located and push to take advantage of the things we offer. Commercial and light industry development on the airport property is the answer, not commuter service.
Sat Dec 15, 2007 21:44:30 CST
The fact remains is that the airport is not new to Victoria. It has been there since what WWII? When the airport area was a military base. It has been an active airport forever & it has never really been successful. You can offer free rides to nowhere til the cows come home but that is not going to make people spend money on flights in the future. The airport has always struggled but not because the community doesn't realize it is there but because they choose not to use it.
Sat Dec 15, 2007 21:36:43 CST
>>I wonder what the Government Agency in charge of this Million Dollar Grant would say if they saw these Articles and the truth of what the City is doing?I wonder what CNN or CSPAN would think?<<
None of them would be surprised. Someone very wisely pointed out just a few posts ago---he who is most convincing gets the grants. I don't know how to put it more clearly; the grant is based on number of enplanements. They are using one of a handful of available methods to boost enplanements.
Let me give you an apples-to-oranges comparison here.
Apple: The county boosts emplanements by offering free airplane rides. Not only does this boost this year's numbers, it encourages higher numbers for the future, as I've said before, by making new citizens consider flying. Regardless of the circumstance or who's paying for it, the enplanements DID infact occur. Not fraud.
Orange: The city could also choose to make up enplanement numbers, simply padding the book with enplanements that didn't happen. That is the true definition of "cooking" the books. Fraud is present in this example.
As Right Rudder and I have been emphatically arguing, there are other things that Mr. Blackwell and the county need to be doing similtaneously to ensure that the airport remains viable, but it's refreshing to see an airport manager that is being allowed by the county to do SOMETHING.
Sat Dec 15, 2007 18:56:30 CST
I am not a Pilot though I play one on MS Flight Sim X and others...all joking aside though I love Flying and Aviation. I would love to take a free plane ride. However what the City is doing to get the million in grants is wrong.
They are "cooking the books" as they say. Raising the numbers of enplanements to reflect a FALSE perseption of Airport usage to qualify for the grant that they regualr Airport usage does NOT qualify for.
That is it plain (plane?) and simple.
any other point of view or arguement is unnecessary.
What kind of message is the City sending when they say that it is OK to artificially raise the stats to qualify for something they do NOT qualify for.
As much as I would like to See Airport traffic expand and improved. as Much as I would like the Airport to suceed...
I don't think being false and Cheating is the Answer.
I wonder what the Government Agency in charge of this Million Dollar Grant would say if they saw these Articles and the truth of what the City is doing?
I wonder what CNN or CSPAN would think?
Sat Dec 15, 2007 13:06:42 CST
If one is unable to see fraud at work, it is impossible to educate one in recognizing said offense. That is why our government representatives get by with so much of it-fraud, that is. The public just will not stand up and call it what it is. They defend to the death their most very favorite politician. My Politician right or wrong-My Politician.
Cooking the books is wrong; it's fraudulent, regardless of who's doing, how they're doing it, and for what purpose. Advertising flights to nowhere as responsible activity is just plain wrong. Just because someone else is doing it, that doesn't make it right.
Should we start advertising Grant Writing courses as How to Commit Fraud 101? or possibly This is How Easy it is to Pilfer Money from the Feds-Expanded Version..
LittleBlueBook, your arguments are strong and valid. Look at who's arguing with you-the aviation types and their spouses/girlfriends who have a lot more to gain from this issue than others, including the community at large.
It is just plain wrong to "Advocate" cooking the books for fraudulent gain.
Sat Dec 15, 2007 09:39:33 CST
As Eye Candy Eric's girlfriend, I must say, I found the article to be very entertaining. Nice job April. : )
Fri Dec 14, 2007 20:05:22 CST
Educate me on something... How is it fraudulent?
Fri Dec 14, 2007 19:36:11 CST
I'm not taking issue with the story itself, its just how it was tarted up by the reporter commenting on the "eye candy" that kind of comment could go somewhere other than the front pageBecause this is the Victoria Advocate, the reporters are rabbit-brains and keep promoting the airport for political gains. Not to even mention the airport is trying to qualify for fraudulent free grant money. In today's world of overindulgence and global warming, energy conservation, and fuel price crisis being shoved down our throats, the citizens of Victoria can rest assured that Victoria is doing its part by wasting valuable fuel resources and polluting your air for carnival ride "flights to nowhere".
Fri Dec 14, 2007 19:33:04 CST
No one is snow-jobbing anyone to get the FAA airport improvement grant. What they are doing is subsidizing. They are willing to spend money to get the money. The real question should be not how they get the money but what do they plan to use it for. Victoria is trying to put the cart before the horse here. They need to be attracting businesses to the airport first, but I've said that before.
As it looks right now, I'll be flying into Victoria on the 22nd and I look forward to it. You guys have a great airport with a lot of potential, what you need is someone with vision to make use of what you have. It's always a pleasure to fly into VCT, I wish I did it more often and I wish my home airport had the systems in place (approaches) that Victoria does. When the weather is like it is outside now, I have to fly into Austin. Not a big problem but still.
Victoria as a whole, should really market whats there for the betterment of the entire city.
Fri Dec 14, 2007 19:14:05 CST
Over a trillion dollars is awarded every year in grants. Thousands of people attend seminars and take college courses in grant-writing, to learn to apply for grants. Why? Everybody knows how to tell the truth, but it takes special skills and training to win a grant---to know the little corner-cutting and snow-jobs that it takes to separate the granters from their money, and what to fake to make it look like your grant application will pass muster. This is just typical. It's how it's done. If Victoria doesn't do it, the money will go to a city that does.
Fri Dec 14, 2007 17:19:45 CST
A couple of points here then I'll shut up about something I know little about:First, I miss Blue Sky Aviation! I love to fly and have since I took my first flight 20 yrs ago. (Late bloomer, aka small town kid, and didn't get to fly the first time until I was almost 30.) I dreamed of getting a Private Pilot license. Not as some sort of career move or anything, just because I love to fly and would love to be able to drive the thing. When Blue Sky was here my wife, who spoils me terribly, paid for ground school for me for a BD present and I started lessons. It was great! Although it was difficult scheduling around my "real" job, the weather and the indtructor's schedule, when I got in that left seat and took off, it was... well, I was like a kid in a candy store. :)
I had eleven hours in my log book, about half way to soloing, when Blue Sky closed down. They offered to let me go to Beeville to finish but, alas, I still have to eat and a mortgage to keep up and it just wasn't feasible. So I console myself with my MS Flight Simulator... but it's just not the same. Maybe someday.... but not if the airport closes.
Second, that "real" job is in the oilfield service sector and I beg to differ with whoever it was that said earlier that the local oil businesses don't use the airport. All our new employees go to Tulsa OK for two weeks and we import and export engineers from all over the country and world on a fairly regular basis. It's a *lot* handier to drop off or pick up someone that's just a couple miles down the road compared to having to send someone to Houston to accomplish the same task. Obviously we're primarily interested in how many wells are being drilled in the area but having a servicable airport close by sure doesn't hurt!
Ernie
Fri Dec 14, 2007 16:31:25 CST
ok do this.why dont the city of victoria and lets say the city of NY (or any sister city) buy a plane. they share the cost to and from their local airports. there is market for anything.
Fri Dec 14, 2007 16:18:19 CST
chaching,Charter cost more then airline travel due to the small number of people to share the cost as well as the higher cost of insurance required. My guess (somewhat educated) would be around $3.75 per mile and so your looking at around $3500.
Fri Dec 14, 2007 16:14:16 CST
rlowery98:I agree that the government should not be in the bail out business, however one of the major roles of government at all levels is to provide and maintain infrastructure.In this regard the airport is no different then a bridge or highway. The reason for the flights is the grant is competitive and goes where most needed. The airport (from a business prospective) is there to sale fuel and supplies to aircraft. They also provide services to passengers and others. Looking at it this way I can see where a small business person like yourself would not like what they hear But on the flip side, if we were talking about a road in front of your store that was full of pot holes you would want the county or whoever to take care of that right? This is the same thing. People think that because its out of sight it should be out of mind but thats not how this works. If victoria does not get this money then it goes to a city like New York. When they get it they will put it to good use building runways, terminals and so on. Would you not like those jobs there in Victoria? I bet the guys in the construction field sure would. Also keep in mind, the airport serves other roles, medical and emergency evacuations, shipping and receiving, Agriculture and so on. None of this would be possible with out it. The farmer that needs his crops dusted can't afford the extra cost of having someone from Houston come to his farm. Your UPS and Fed EX packages are shipped thru Martinair, right there on the field. Your shipping cost would go up if it HAD to be trucked to Corpus.So my point and the point of Texican (not to speak for him) is that Victoria needs the airport at all cost because once its gone, it's gone. There are so many possibilities open with an airport thats local that suddenly are off the table when the closest one is more then an hour away.
Fri Dec 14, 2007 15:59:52 CST
ok i go to the airport somewhere and look around for a local charter flight co.what is a cost to charter a flight to dallas and then be p/u? family of 4.
what is a cost to charter a flight to las vegas and then be p/u?
anybody know?
Fri Dec 14, 2007 15:54:53 CST
Texican, You beat me to it! LOLI love to take kids flying. I can't tell you how many times I have turned around just to see the smiles. An airport to them is just as good as a museum. Much can be learned about the world from your LOCAL airport
Fri Dec 14, 2007 15:46:08 CST
i think the idea of having a airport in victoria is a great idea we need to be connected to world i for one would like to see a direct flight to popular vacation spots like las vegas, there are many people that live in this area that go to the places like vegas alot, but then again a airport is like a business if there is a need for one there will be one. i for one have a business but i do not get bailed out by the government when my numbers are down and i do not think the airport should either. but what do i know im just a small businessman, wishing i could get a government fund
Fri Dec 14, 2007 15:42:37 CST
That, right there, is why we pilots live to give airplane rides!
Fri Dec 14, 2007 15:16:30 CST
I don't know about right or wrong as far as the grant goes, but I think what the airport did was a fabulous thing. One of my classes got to take one of these "flights to nowhere" and it was a great experience for them. Almost half my students had never been on an airplane before. This was their first opportunity to ride a plane and possible the only opportunity they will have. I know they are thankful they got to take part in it. It was a great experience for me as I got to experience it with them. I got to watch their faces as we took off, their eyes glued with wonder to the windows. What an experience! Thank you Victoria Regional Airport!
Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:49:47 CST
LittleBlueBook:I think what the city is really trying to do is capture some of the FAA funds that are available every year for airport improvements. This may be to stop the bleeding of money from the city/county that happens when an airport is not maintained.
I'm not offended at all by people questioning whats going on, What does offend me is when people (and I'm not talking about you)don't look past the short term and want to use the airport land for something else, only then to realize that the industry you want and need cannot come because they need (or want) rapid shipping/ transportation. Truck or train does not fit the bill.
Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:48:21 CST
Right Rudder: Working on that. If you'll google the Victoria chapter of a certain organization that puts on a big airshow in the midwest every year (not giving the link here for obvious reasons). We're going to add a blog capability to it soon and you're more than welcome. Littlebluebook: Enplanements are a year to year thing. Just like anything else, of course you can derive an average, but year to year can vary drastically in any aviation business. They're focused on making the goal this year so they have the opportunity to make future goals. I really don't see any integrity issue there.
Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:47:14 CST
Woo-hoo, I KNEW my husband (RightRudder) couldn't stay quiet on this and would eventually weigh in on the subject, LOL. All of his points are spot-on and based on knowledge and experience.And to Texican about One Six Right: Yes, we do own that particular documentary. Our youngest son, who just turned 2 years old in October, LOVES that movie. Seriously. He calls it his "plane" movie, and begs to watch it almost all the time. He and our 9-year old are completely enamored with planes, airports, and aviation as a whole.
Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:38:40 CST
Texican--I am not looking for a scandal. Help me understand how these extra numbers, which do not accurately represent usual airport activity, are not false?Part of my salary is paid by a grant and I know that there are HUGE criminal penalties attached to my reports if they are not truthful.
But, if this is acceptable in the aviation field, then I can be perfectly fine with it. Did't mean to push everyone's buttons. ;)
Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:37:39 CST
Texican: Yes, My two year old watches that movie constantly. If the city is partly responsible then its time to change who runs the city. I'm not much on blogging but It may be time to put up an aviation blog...
LittleBlueBook:
Its not creating falst statements, They are looking at "butts in the seat" thats what makes airlines money. The FAA doesn't give two flips who paid for the flight.
They also look at operations per hour, This is the measure of how many take offs and landings are done in a given period (say 60 days). When you look at the economics of an airport you have to take into account every aspect of it, These are just two.
Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:31:46 CST
LittleBlueBook: There is nothing false about it. An enplanement is an enplanement. Show me where a statute or reg says that an enplanement must a) be for-profit and b) cannot be paid for by the county, and I'll shut up. Yes, it's a bandaid for this year's numbers, but it also has long-term implications (see my previous posts). And, it's not the only issue (see my previous posts and the excellent comments by Right Rudder).
You're looking for a scandal where there isn't one.
Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:29:18 CST
Excellent points, RightRudder. Part of the problem, incidentally, is that the County (and I meant the Commissioners' Court, not the airport management) likes its little FBO monopoly. There have been some FBOs that have tried to get in, but the County hasn't been welcoming. Also great point about airports being non-renewable resources. I recognize that line :). A documentary called One Six Right would be a good watch for anyone who feels passionately about either side of this issue.
Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:28:15 CST
Let me clarify something. I absolutely have NO problem with fixing up the airport. I have no problem with encouraging folks to fly.
What I have a problem with is the ways the numbers are being manipulated to achieve the grant. I'm trying to look at the greater good here (the grant and the improvements it will provide), but there is that little teeny gnawing spot in me that says there is something really wrong about FALSELY INFLATING THE NUMBERS, and then PUBLICIZING IT!
Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:20:21 CST
It's called infrastructure. Currently Victoria has it. Victoria needs it to attract other industry besides oil and cattle. Thats just fact. How many business men for the oil companies do you think fly American Eagle or Delta? I can tell you for a fact NONE. How many top executives for other industries fly the airlines? NONE? Whats the number one thing that any industry looks at when deciding to relocate? INFRASTRUCTURE!Airports are a non-renewable resource, you can't loose and then bring it back. If you level the airport for another truck stop you have literally closed Victoria off from the rest of the world as far as the type of business that would come in the future. The city does have it backwards in this case, Don't worry about the airlines. They need to get Signature, Atlantic or any other FBO (Fixed Base Operator) to open up.Once thats done, you can start to attract corporate jets and more GA (General Aviation) business. After you have put something there that people use, Start talking to manufacturing. This happened in Sulfur Springs Texas, They build the Legend Cub there. Waco is going after this type of business with gusto. Now you have something in place, up and running that the aviation community wants. THEN start talking to the airlines, you won't need to talk too much because they will already be talking to you. If I ran that airport, It would be turned around as quick as possible. The FAA does not care who gets the money, All they care about is how its used. I wish people outside of aviation would take the time to educate themselves on how it works and really study the economics of the airport. With the shortage of pilots around the world I'm truly surprised that there is not a flight school down there rolling in the cash. So take note victoria, I make my money in aviation. I would not mind relocating to Victoria but I have to make money to support my expensive habits like eating, not to mention raising two kids. Until Victoria gives me a reason to move I'll stay in Austin and give my tax dollars to Travis county.
Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:15:11 CST
>>And you mean to tell me that the airport is floundering due to poor management ?<<
I didn't say poor management, I said LACK OF SUPPORT for management. Two different things. Due to the makeup of the Airport Commission (not a pilot on it---strange, don't you think? And that's not for lack of trying) and the Commissioner's Court, the airport manager in Victoria has a near impossible task.
>>This isn't Applebee's sir.....it's AN AIRPORT. There is little room for error. Flying planes in the air for nothing to get grant money is not only silly but just plain stupid.<<
Again, I think you need to look at the big picture. Grant money is very likely only part of the equation. One way to boost ridership is to get people who've never considered flying out of Victoria to start thinking about it. That city employee in the article the other day is a good example. I really think they're looking at a long-term investment here. Plus, honestly, free airplane rides are a good PR move for an undersupported, underused airport.
This guy is trying to do something to save the airport. I'd hope people would complain just as vocally (well, actually I hope more vocally) if he was just sitting on his posterior watching the grant money evaporate.
I know I'm not going to change your mind; just trying to get you to back out and look long-range.
Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:14:20 CST
Guess there is truth in the saying you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Too many years of "local government leadership" opposed to spending anything to improve anything - except on their personal wants - has finally come back to roost and is thoroughly ingrained in the selfish $1.99 all you can eat local mentality . The people of this community, who would like to see it prosper and thrive, should applaud those officials after having reviewed with hindsight the errors of their predecessors and now with foresight are trying to make a difference, and improve the infrastructure or quality of life for all Victoria. For those that are still in it for what they can get for themselves - there is nothing to say other than you have not changed.
Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:06:19 CST
Your right. My posts are based on perception, but perception does not equal ignorance. I am not a pilot so yes, in a sense I admit my ignorance to the airport's way of operation. But I do travel for business and I do not know of anybody that when they need to fly to say Dallas/Ft Worth International for example that uses the Victoria airport.And you mean to tell me that the airport is floundering due to poor management ? This isn't Applebee's sir.....it's AN AIRPORT. There is little room for error. Flying planes in the air for nothing to get grant money is not only silly but just plain stupid.
Fri Dec 14, 2007 09:55:26 CST
All you're doing there, Observer, is short-changing potential. Here's the deal: Victoria has a resource that a lot of cities would kill for. The longest runway at VCT (12L-30R) was built for F-100 jets. That means that we have an unusually long runway, suitable for passenger jets, cargo aircraft, and military aircraft.You claim that the potential would have been realized already. With proper management, yes. However, we've yet to have an airport manager who could talk the county out of funds to properly promote the airport. Just like any industry, aviation businesses don't just spring up---you have to attract them.
In fact, a promising Fixed-Base Operator (Blue Sky Aviation) which brought general aviation, helicopter, and business jet clients in from literally all over the US, was run off by the county about 10 years ago.
Your advocating levelling the airport for a trucking yard is just plain ignorant. Somebody said something about polluting the environment with the "flights to nowhere." If nothign else, take a look at truck emissions versus aircraft emissions.
Face it, until you base your argument on facts, you're going nowhere.
Fri Dec 14, 2007 09:50:22 CST
So let it go then. One of the first criteria one would begin to evaluate the potential of a city from would most logically be the transportation industry. If Victoria had any potential for an airport then it would have been done already. Victoria really has no industry other than oil and cattle; neither of which require any kind of flight services on a regular basis. That's why trucking and hot-shotting does so well. Level the airport and build a trucking yard. With the I69 corridor coming it makes sense to let the modality of transportation not needed (flight) give way for the modality of transportation growing (trucking/highway travel).
Fri Dec 14, 2007 09:44:19 CST
CF: From a pilot to a pilot's wife: Amen.
So many of you people keep complaining about how Victoria is never going to grow out of its small town-ness. How it isn't attracting enough industry. How it doesn't have this or that. How in the world, pray tell, do you expect any of this to happen without a viable, serviceable, airport? I guarantee you that it will not.
Flights to at least one hub are vital to get any major industry into a city. The County is finally stepping up to make something happen instead of lamenting a missed goal, and still you complain. Quit belly-aching and look at the big picture.
Fri Dec 14, 2007 09:40:49 CST
Okay, okay, I've so far stayed out of this Victoria Airport debate, not wanting to "make waves" about it (and wanting to see just how informed the Victoria residents are about the whole situation, as well). I wanted to congratulate Aprill for taking the time to go on one of these flights and writing a POSITIVE article about it. As a pilot's wife, I'm pretty ensconced in the aviation life, and to tell the truth, it hurts my heart a little to watch an airport die little by little--especially when there is still time to save it, but most of the area residents seem unwilling. It's like watching a person trapped in a building fire, with no way to save them.Whether people want to admit/believe it or not, most airports operate on the "use it or lose it" principle. That's just the way it is. If the airport's not used, then the airport won't get the necessary funding. Victoria Regional has so much freaking potential, it's unreal. What a sad state of affairs that most of the residents in the area don't cherish it enough to even attempt to salvage it. And the ones that DO want to save it can't agree on just how to do that. Sad.
Fri Dec 14, 2007 09:27:23 CST
"How on earth is this front page news?"Because this is the Victoria Advocate, the reporters are rabbit-brains and keep promoting the airport for political gains. Not to even mention the airport is trying to qualify for fraudulent free grant money. In today's world of overindulgence and global warming, energy conservation, and fuel price crisis being shoved down our throats, the citizens of Victoria can rest assured that Victoria is doing its part by wasting valuable fuel resources and polluting your air for carnival ride "flights to nowhere".
Fri Dec 14, 2007 08:49:51 CST
April, thank you for your story. There are a lot of cynics around here who have no clue what building enthusiasm for a product can do for a market. To all you cynics out there, I have a good read for you. It's called "The Tipping Point." In addition to trying to meet the quota and secure the grant (we should consider ourselves lucky to see such creativity out of Victoria County), I believe they are trying to build enthusiasm and built a tipping point when it comes to enplanements. As a pilot, I've known for a long time that the best way to build allies for aviation is to take people up. Ask anyone who's been on the free flights. I bet they'll fly now.
Fri Dec 14, 2007 07:53:12 CST
Okay, I'll admit that I am a bit confused. Somebody help me out here--
After listening to KAVU last night, and reading this story, I think I have this much figured out. The County wants to get a big grant to make airport improvements. But to get the grant, they need to show certain numbers (re:traffic in and out). Because people are not legitimately contributing to these numbers, the County is flying school kids (AKA warm bodies)around for 20 minutes to make the numbers.
Am I right? If so, ARE YOU SERIOUS???
Fri Dec 14, 2007 07:43:13 CST
How on earth is this front page news?