RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Feds give initial OK to runway extension



Toolbox

By Bruce Edwards STAFF WRITER - Published: December 5, 2009

Plans for a long-awaited major improvement at Rutland-Southern Vermont Regional Airport received a preliminary go-ahead from the Federal Aviation Administration.

The FAA gave preliminary conceptual approval for a 1,000-foot runway extension at the North Clarendon airport that would extend the main runway to 6,000 feet. The extension was contained in the airport's master plan.

News of the approval was announced Thursday evening at the conclusion of the annual legislative issues meeting hosted by the Rutland Region Chamber of Commerce and Rutland Economic Development Corp.

Extension of the main runway is considered by many in the business community as critical to the airport's future.

Peter Fisk told the gathering of chamber members and legislators that the airport needed to extend the runway to accommodate future traffic and that at 6,000 feet the runway "opens up a huge economic opportunity."

However, obtaining the preliminary approval wasn't easy, said Fisk, a private pilot and a member of the Rutland Region Transportation Council.

He said the FAA had repeatedly indicated that a runway extension was out of the question but that began to change when the Rutland State Airport was renamed.

"Maybe it was fortuitous a few years ago we renamed the airport the Rutland-Southern Vermont Regional Airport," Fisk said, "because the business community up and down the valley as far south as south of Manchester … over the hill to Ludlow and Okemo wrote letters of support for the recommendation to extend the runway to 6,000 feet."

The FAA's preliminary approval clears a major hurdle but final approval and funding remains far from certain for a project estimated to cost between $30 million and $50 million. While giving conceptual approval to a 1,000-foot extension, the FAA said in its letter dated Oct. 21, that based on projected future traffic, funding could only be justified at the present time for a 500-foot extension.

Related to the runway extension is an FAA requirement that by 2015 all airports establish a safety zone at both ends of a runway for emergencies. Fisk said that since the FAA is paying for the runway safety improvement it makes sense to couple that with the 1,000-foot extension instead of doing it piecemeal, 500 feet at a time.

If Rutland is going to extend its runway and meet the new safety mandate, Fisk said the planning process needs to start immediately.

He asked lawmakers to support funding for a preliminary engineering study when the Legislature takes up the new transportation budget next year. Fisk offered no cost estimate for the study.

Extending the runway involves relocating the road to the airport and extending the runway itself across Route 103, which would be rerouted.

Fisk said in an interview following the meeting that he's hoping the federal government will pick up 90 percent of the cost of the project.

Thomas Donahue, executive vice president of the Rutland Region Chamber of Commerce, said prior to the meeting that extending the runway will allow the airport to attract larger charter aircraft and private planes. "If you're not long enough, you can't compete," he said.

Donahue also noted that in addition to coming up with funding, the project will also have to pass environmental muster.

bruce.edwards@rutlandherald.com








READER COMMENTS


It's always a good thing to have new businesses set up shop in the area. I guess after watching so many try to and fail, either because this area cannot support their kind of business or act 250 or other expenses, that it is difficult to hold out a lot of hope for a "huge economic opportunity."
-- Posted by m mattell on Mon, Dec 7, 2009, 6:38 pm EST

report this comment



The issue here is without these improvements, what you will end up with in North Clarendon is an underdeveloped, high vacancy industrial park with a massive parking lot. We have enough of those around here already. Either you keep it an airport, in which it will need these mandated changes to qualify, and it will need these changes to accept future business, or just let it rot. The usual point of view of people around here is if it doesn't exist to meet their individual needs, to them it doesn't or shouldn't exist. Just because YOU cannot fathom why anyone would land a plane in Clarendon, does not mean there isn't a need for it now or in the future. Similar to the Amtrak, while its full potential right now is not realized, it's a step toward s o m e t h i n g happening in the future that will connect this area to a larger demographic, maybe an out of state business would bring their "glass half full" attitude here to counteract all you half-empty glasses.
-- Posted by concerned citizen on Mon, Dec 7, 2009, 4:44 pm EST

report this comment



How about this - The FAA is going to spend X amount of money on airport improvements in a given time frame. They will spend this money somewhere no matter what. If they want to spend some of it in Rutland County, why not. They will pick up 90% of the improvement cost, and if we don't want it, somewhere someone else will get it. Whatever money is available, it will be spent, and it is not there for a bypass, for health care of the poor, food stamps, or anything except airport improvement.
-- Posted by No More on Mon, Dec 7, 2009, 2:43 pm EST

report this comment



Gregory Thayer
Export of our children? What sort of jobs do you envision? Taxi drivers? Oh yeah, that will keep them here. Construction workers? Maybe but short term.
Unless well paying full time jobs with benefits become more prevalent, our children will leave. Skiing is not the best reason to bring people here. Weather dependent and becoming more and more expensive just for the lift ticket.
Too bad we can't get money to address the other needs in N Clarendon. (Water/sewer Issues)
While an airport needs to be up to code to serve and operate, we're fifty miles from nowhere. Who's coming? Or going? Demographics study for need please.
-- Posted by m mattell on Mon, Dec 7, 2009, 2:28 pm EST

report this comment



Waste of money. For $50 million dollars, you could make a significant start to a US 4/7 Rutland by-pass, or do nearly a complete one around Brandon or Middlebury. Rutland again is the laughing stock... This is kinda like the Rutland Transit Center x 10.
-- Posted by Joe Biker on Mon, Dec 7, 2009, 2:05 pm EST

report this comment



This is precisely the same kind of nonsensical pie in the sky pork-fueled Bridge to Nowhere-type boondoggle that the local RH.com pro-business crowd would be SCREAMING about if it was a municipal project coming from the Big Bad Government using any level of taxpayer dollars. (Steve, I really wish I'd thought of the "Runway to Nowhere" line first... that's just brilliant.)

Points, though, to Tom Donahue for his inadvertently funny comment about the need to be "long enough" to "compete". That one's just begging a smart-arse reply that would guarantee the immediate deletion of this post!
-- Posted by Son Of That Guy on Mon, Dec 7, 2009, 1:30 pm EST

report this comment



Every time someone attempts to bring in jobs and possibly business, we always here the same thing. The na sayers never seem to get it!
-- Posted by Frank Westcott on Mon, Dec 7, 2009, 10:56 am EST

report this comment



KB writes: "a Route 103 relocation through a swamp is not part of the approved conceptual plan, I think it's been mentioned before that they were looking at a tunnel option as their final proposal to the FAA." Read the article which quotes the proposal - "Extending the runway involves relocating the road to the airport and extending the runway itself across Route 103, which would be rerouted." Obviously, it would make a lot more sense and cost a lot less to build a runway extension OVER Route 103 - that's what the Clarendon Select Board requested. However, the powers that be want to reroute Route 103 at great expense (and great devaluation to property along its new route). There seems to be a profit motive involved here.
-- Posted by Michael in Vermont on Sun, Dec 6, 2009, 7:45 pm EST

report this comment



Some planes right now have a problem taking off out Rutland with full fuel on summer days. The need is great to be able get up to speed and safely stop and have enough pavement in front of them for it to happen if there were engine or other problems. Icy conditions only make stopping in time worse during the winter. Example: Southwest at Midway. Im sure charter operations is only one argument for lengthening the runway. MIV, a Route 103 relocation through a swamp is not part of the approved conceptual plan, I think it's been mentioned before that they were looking at a tunnel option as their final proposal to the FAA. If you take a look at Plattsburg, they offer Allegiant and DirectAir to Florida and Myrtle Beach. How can they do this? Although pavement strength is greater, they have adequate runway length that is not hindering current aeroplane safety and performance. It remains to be seen the exact price of the project, which would be part of the engineering study. What specific design options are out there? Do they really need a full taxiway to the end of the constructed length (eliminating this component could reduce the size of the project by possibly tens of millions). I would think that there is some flexibility that would make the lengthening project less expensive that still achieves the same end result. Until the engineering takes place though, it's too early to say exactly how much is needed to complete the project, but at least it gets us to the next step in the right direction.

-Kenny, over and out.
-- Posted by Kenny Blankenship on Sun, Dec 6, 2009, 7:23 pm EST

report this comment



congratulation to the Airport for this very important part of our economic development success. Now lets get the RRA and REDC Exec. Dir. flying out to market Rutland and start bringing JOBS to Rutland! WE NEED JOBS, so now get off your asses and go get some here, and stop the export of our children!
-- Posted by Gregory Thayer on Sun, Dec 6, 2009, 7:00 pm EST

report this comment



"Wait....this is beyond the scope of Rutland, I forgot, you guys can't handle something of this magnitude that would benefit the area." So, Kenny - anyone who doesn't want to waste $50 million (plus, plus) on a plan to bring in imaginary 100 (or 50 or 75) passenger charter planes must be stupid. I see. And how would this project benefit the area? You probably assume that all of the work would be done locally. The federal government just spent $2 million to put up the airport landing towers. Not one cent of that work was done locally - it was done by a company in Biddeford, Maine. They brought in their own men and supplies. No one in the Rutland area got a job from that $2 million project. The federal government recently spent a small fortune to put a fence around the airport. All of that work was done by an out-of-area company using their own men and material. Once again, no one in the Rutland area got a job from that project. These projects are all done by bid. There is no reason to think that any of this work would help out any unemployed area residents.

What everyone seems to forget is that we already have an airport that is vastly under-utilized. It already has the capacity to bring in hundreds of passengers every day on 22-passenger planes. But the passengers aren't there. Every time we change the passenger service we DECREASE the size of the planes because there aren't enough people interested in flying into Rutland. We could spend $100 billion and expand the runway all the way to Middlebury and we would still only have enough interest to fly in three (partially filled) 8-passenger planes per day. I realize that many people in Rutland need a job and I realize that there are powerful business owners that are pushing this project because it looks like a good business opportunity but there is no need to borrow $50 million (plus, plus) more from China in order to lengthen the runway and reroute Route 103 through the swamp when the numbers simply aren't there.
-- Posted by Michael in Vermont on Sun, Dec 6, 2009, 5:50 pm EST

report this comment



Conceptual approval on the part of the F.A.A. is far from any guarantee. Particularly in this instance where the agency has stated based on its projections only a 500 foot extension could be justified for funding. Re-routing a busy highway in favor of an empty runway inspires new levels of confidence in government. The signature of I gotta life is correct in the assumption that landing weight capabilities of the current runway need upgrading. Without that initial upgrade, prior or during construction of the safety zones, there is some question as to what size aircraft could be accomodated. There was no comment as to the size of the "larger charter aircraft" so any assumptions beyond the 68,000 lb. landing capacity are premature. Thus far attempts to attract larger commercial aviation companies to this area have been of less than positive result. If the onus is to get the charter planes to fly skiers or corporate executives in to their vacation homes on the hillside, then the venture is an expensive one designed to court the financial elite. Will that lure the financial elite into investing in this area with business expansion? Critical to the airports future is straight talk about any hidden tangential costs such as security or emergency services upgrades; and where the ten percent funding will be found in the Transportation Budget. Other intrastructure improvements have been shelved due to lack of capital. This project is not a bad one conceptually; however the question remains will the short term costs be offset by an increase is passenger, commuter and charter traffic at the R.S.V.R.A. Rutland Economic Development Corporation has done well with the Airport Industrial Park. However; how many companies have their own corporate aircraft based here? There are some private smaller planes owned by area executives hangared at the airport. Hopefully the project is being pushed for the right reasons. The final judge will be the F.A.A. and there lies the funds.
-- Posted by Ed Larson on Sun, Dec 6, 2009, 5:36 pm EST

report this comment



This is still cheaper, faster, and has least amount of environmental impact than any highway up the western side of the state by a long shot. I may be off, I thought the plan was to go over 103, not relocate it which would be a lot cheaper?
Although 100 customer jet service might be a little ambitious, 50-75 seat seasonal service or airline charters would appeal to those that don't want to spend 10-20 HOURS ROUND TRIP driving time over a weekend. There are numerous airports out west and in Canada that funnel customers to winter resorts. Some airports are "drivable" from Denver, but it gets em on the slopes a lot faster. If the FAA is already going to provide most the fill to get this done by 2015, now's the time. Otherwise, see you in 30 years at the next chance. BTW, the runway can support more, a lot more (close to double) than is currently indicated (which is a very, very conservative number and the only reason is to extend service life), according to my brother who works for Boeing analyzing runways for their aircraft.
Those with sticker shock obviously don't understand the big picture of how this would help the entire southern part of the state and it's out of state visitor industry. Wait....this is beyond the scope of Rutland, I forgot, you guys can't handle something of this magnitude that would benefit the area. That's why Rutland appears to never get ahead and always lags behind. it trips itself up and time again when opportunities come up.
LOL!!! The same type of naysayers said a western corridor was a boondoggle way back in the 50's when we missed out on that one too. Might as well call this another missed opportuntity Ver 2.0.
-- Posted by Kenny Blankenship on Sun, Dec 6, 2009, 1:27 pm EST

report this comment



Fifty to a hundred million for a thousand feet of concrete. Think what that could do for rail passenger service THROUGHOUT Vermont. And folks have the nerve to grouch about a rail subsidy!
-- Posted by Jonathan Meeks on Sun, Dec 6, 2009, 12:09 pm EST

report this comment



One other thing I forgot to add......The max landing weight right now for the existing runway is 68000 pounds for for dual wheels .I dont know if that was ever thought of.There is no jet that will carry anywhere near 100 passengers that weighs any where near 68000 pounds .They all weigh much more. Runway Weight Capability (lbs.)
Runway ID Single Wheel Double Wheel Double Tandem Wheel Dual Double Wheel
01/19 40,000 68,000 N/A N/A
13/31 30,000
Decoded....... Runway 1/19max weight 68000 in any configuration
Runway 13/31 max weight 30000 pounds
Im not sure what the max weight for the ramp is.
Im not against building a longer runway however there are a lot more things involved than just extending the length of the runway.
Please research fully before we spend 30 to 50 million dollars(A figure that came from a previous posting)and then end up spending even more to make it (the extension) usable for the purpose it was meant to.Larger planes.
-- Posted by I gotta life on Sun, Dec 6, 2009, 11:30 am EST

report this comment



"Fisk said in an interview following the meeting that he's hoping the federal government will pick up 90 percent of the cost of the project.", "a project estimated to cost between $30 million and $50 million."
"While giving conceptual approval to a 1,000-foot extension, the FAA said in its letter dated Oct. 21, that based on projected future traffic, funding could only be justified at the present time for a 500-foot extension."

Just what we need, a runway to nowhere.
-- Posted by steve Nunya on Sun, Dec 6, 2009, 11:06 am EST

report this comment



Bigger runway and planes? Who the hell wants to fly here? There's NOTHING here!

I'm sure if bigger planes could land here there would be more exits than entries.
.
-- Posted by NONENONE ONE on Sun, Dec 6, 2009, 7:50 am EST

report this comment



I always appreciate a longer runway.
That having been said is it a good use of your tax dollars?
I flew for Precision Airlines back in the 80`s when then had the 19 seat (STOL)Twin Otter aircraft and the 9 seat Piper Navajo.We were never full.Then it dropped to the 15 Beech.Never full.Now its Cape Air flying Cessna 402`s and I dont know if they are full or not but you are paying for the service even if you dont use it thru the EAS (Essential Air Service)program.
I now fly a jet for a major airline that does a lot of charter work.
Yes I could land that in Rutland if we were light enough .Yes I could take of from Rutland if we were light enough .
We couldnt operate out of Rutland and make any money that light though.
Are there the resources to handle such a jet there if we happened to find someone who would spend the 22500 dollars an hour plus other handling costs to fly it?
No.
Could they be brought in to do it ?
Yes
And make money on it?
No
That said does the area need the jobs created by the work created by this project?The answer is a resounding YES .
This is a project that will be debated for years to come and the people with the most effective group lobbying for them will win.
It will be interesting to watch who wins.
Thanks for reading what is just one mans opinion.
-- Posted by I gotta life on Sun, Dec 6, 2009, 7:34 am EST

report this comment



Try this No More: Call the airport managers in Burlington and Albany (I did) and find out how many 100-passenger charter planes landed at their airports in 2009. The answer for both is 0 (zero). And yes, JetSet Charters IS the largest air charter business in the USA and yes, the marketing director there told me that, on average, they only do 2 passenger charters per year in the USA in the large (100 passenger) jets because of the prohibitive cost. You mention that their primary business is chartering the Gulf V. My point exactly. That's because it's affordable and it is the corporate plane of choice. The marketing director told me that they charted one to Rutland just this past week. And no, I do not want to buy a bridge in New York - I understand that they are all in dire need of repair. I also don't want to waste $50 million (plus, plus) on the Rutland Airport for some pie-in-the sky dream. At some point we need to stop spending money that we don't have.
-- Posted by Michael in Vermont on Sat, Dec 5, 2009, 11:58 pm EST

report this comment



MIV. Appears you haven't a clue, 1 - JetSet Charters is a clearing house for corporate type aircraft that they arrange charters for (example - Gulfstream V). 2- Do you think that people from outside the US don't have an interest in using the airport as a charter destination.
If you think that an outfit that does two passenger charters a year in a 100 aircraft is a big outfit, I have a bridge in NYC i will sell you, cheap.
-- Posted by No More on Sat, Dec 5, 2009, 11:02 pm EST

report this comment



Oh, please! Charter flights of 100 people landing at the Rutland Airport? This isn't going to happen if we extend the runway all the way to Brandon. It doesn't happen in Burlington, it doesn't happen in Albany and it isn't going to happen in Rutland. Skiers, you say? 99.9% of skiers drive to the ski areas. That way they can set their own schedules and that is why the ski trains have been such a disappointment. Have you done any sort of a study to see if charter flights to Rutland of 100 people would be viable? Obviously not. Well, I have. I talked with the marketing director at JetSet Charters. They are the largest air charter company the the USA. Almost all of their charters are with the Gulf V - the same plane that lands at Rutland almost every day. They also offer charters on Boeing 737's (which hold 100 passengers.) Almost of these charters are cargo flights (the seats are removable.) On average they only do 2 passenger charters PER YEAR on the 737's IN THE ENTIRE USA. Since they charge $110,000 just for the aircraft rental, it is much cheaper to fly commercial. Still want to spend $50 million (or more) to extend the runway at Rutland so we can accommodate 100 passenger charter planes? Do your homework!
-- Posted by Michael in Vermont on Sat, Dec 5, 2009, 5:28 pm EST

report this comment



Golly, some of you people still want to live in the 19th century don't you. The airlines will never bring a large passenger jet into the airport on a scheduled basis, but there will be LARGE chartered aircraft with many many skiers on them if the runway was long enough. The runway can handle small passenger plane now, not 100 size. Moving the towers is easy, re-routing 103 is easy, extending south is not an option. There will never be an Interstate on this side of this pathetic state because too many people have their head stuck in the sand saying, well this is how it's always been and this is how I want it to stay. In today's climate in this state, there would be no building of GE, the Airport Industrial Park, no income producing building of any kind, only some wind turbines that when they go up people, you are going scream about, and it's going to be too bad for you. There is no business coming into Vermont now, an airport improvement might help, but without it, there is no chance at all.
-- Posted by No More on Sat, Dec 5, 2009, 4:16 pm EST

report this comment



I am wondering how many inquiries into that position the city has had? I say add one more. Good Day,CCF
-- Posted by Clyde Fitzgerald on Sat, Dec 5, 2009, 12:47 pm EST

report this comment



That is typical. Didn't they just ***** several approach towers on the north end of the airport? How much did that cost, and now they would have to be moved at what new cost? Do not say,"the money will come from the feds", 'cause it still is a waste of taxpayers dollars. 5 to 10 years down the road someone may say, "OOPS, we should have extended the runway south instead of north", and there we go again! I do not believe much will happen to change the area business climate without a decent highway system for transport in/out more quickly and safely. I also say that a business friendly state would do more than all that combined. Thanks for (add your quote here) ? Good Day, CCF
-- Posted by Clyde Fitzgerald on Sat, Dec 5, 2009, 12:41 pm EST

report this comment



If the Rutland area has any serious economic future at all, it hinges on Interstate Highway access, not on a runway to nowhere.
-- Posted by Marginalized Voices on Sat, Dec 5, 2009, 10:30 am EST

report this comment



This is a boondoggle of the first degree. 1) We used to have 18-passenger commercial flights to Boston but this couldn't be sustained so they switched to smaller 8-passenger planes. The large Gulf V private aircraft use the airport on a regular basis. These are almost certainly the largest private planes that would ever land there no matter how long the runway was. 2) Rerouting Route 103 would cause a major disruption of the traffic flow south of Rutland and would cause great devaluation of the property on Route 7B. The Clarendon Select Board has already written a letter opposing this relocation but since when does the opinion of the local select board matter when there is big money to be made?
-- Posted by Michael in Vermont on Sat, Dec 5, 2009, 10:20 am EST

report this comment



Hopefully the Rutland County legislative brood can get their act together, act in concert, use some muscle and get this done.

Rutland County simply cannot survive without vast improvements in the existing transportation infrastructure. Get this approved!!!

JD and his stalwarts in Montpelier need to be reminded Vermont occupies greater territory than that north of Middlebury.
-- Posted by Mountain Lover on Sat, Dec 5, 2009, 8:00 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout