CITY NEEDS TO WAKE UP

The corrective action plan post is the 4^th most read post. 

As one reads through the rules regulations and Federal Laws, it is quite obvious that they are written with one thing in mind, to protect the Federal Government investment in the airport system.   Where does the funding for this investment come from?  Taxes paid on aviation fuel. 

They are also written to ensure the most benefit be received to the aviation public.  For example:  If market rent for nonaeronautical uses results in a surplus, that surplus can be used to subsidize aeronautical costs of the airport. It is to the benefit of aviation and the traveling public that aeronautical users be able to use the airport at rates and charges below the cost of providing the aviation facilities and services if these are effectively subsidized by nonaeronautical revenues.

What is also clear in the example of St. Clair is that the city has no respect for the intentions presented by the FAA.  The city has taken a position that these laws can be twisted and interpreted to provide the city with justification for their actions.  This is not the case. 

It is obvious that the city administration is intentionally slaughtering the airport.  What the city will eventually learn is that this is the wrong approach.   The longer the city takes this approach, the more obvious it becomes that the intention of the city is to destroy the airport. 

What is obvious also is that the path chosen by Ron Blum to close the airport was poorly thought out.  But besides that, it is also obvious that causing as much damage to the airport in the process was the intention.   The whole plot reeks of VENGEANCE.

What it will boil down to is the following:

b. Preliminary assessment. FAA must make a judgment call in all cases as to whether a

sponsor is reasonably meeting its federal commitments. A sponsor meets its commitments when:

(1). The federal obligations are fully understood;

(2). A program (e.g., preventive maintenance, leasing policies, operating regulations, etc.) is in

place that the FAA deems adequate to carry out the sponsor’s commitments;

(3). The sponsor satisfactorily demonstrates that such a program is being carried out; and,

(4). Past compliance issues have been addressed.

Until the city can demonstrate these four points, they are beating their head against the wall. 

If the city is not willing to operate the airport per their agreement, the city should find an entity that will operate it according to the rules and regulations.   It is time for the city to give up the operation of the airport to someone who can follow the rules.   The direction the city has chosen will not get them to where they want to go.