The local news
publication has published a statement by the mayor as to pursuing the closure
of the airport until they get it closed.
It is clear by the response from the FAA last December that certain compliance
conditions will have to be met in order for the FAA to continue the
consideration of the closure request. One
of the conditions is to operate the airport for the use and benefit of the
public to make it available to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical
activity on fair and reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination. The FAA also determined that to mean the
Aviation public. It is also obvious that the city lacks an
understanding of this concept. Their actions
demonstrate a plan to do the opposite.
If you were to take a
look at where the city is now and where they need to be, you would realize that
the city’s plan is not working. From the
aviation point of view, it appears that the city is actually going
backwards. With little to no aviation
expertise, the city is trying to invent a new way to close an airport. The city has produced documents that state
their redevelopment plan, and their closure request, and both of these documents
in reality provide documentation that the city is not living up to its Federal
requirements to operate the airport.
Until the city realizes they
do not have an understanding of what is required, and can demonstrate that
understanding, produce a plan to operate the airport as the FAA and the United
States Congress intended, and prove that the plan is in place and working, closure
is hopeless.
One high ranking FAA official put it this way, there is no support for the St. Clair plan, ANYWHERE, IN THE ENTIRE FAA ORGANIZATION.
One high ranking FAA official put it this way, there is no support for the St. Clair plan, ANYWHERE, IN THE ENTIRE FAA ORGANIZATION.
I didn't know people even read that paper anymore.
ReplyDeleteWho is the crackpot at the newspaper that keeps writing, MODOT does not oppose closing the airport ? He should know that they can't oppose anything, but that does not mean they approve either. There is only 4 tenants because of the high rent and poor conditions and that is the fault of Ron Blum.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny that this post was made but, of course, it's so vague, just like always. "One high ranking FAA official ..." Uh huh, a high ranking FAA official. Very doubtful. Without specifically naming that official, the comment holds absolutely no weight. None. It is just as easy for someone else to say a high ranking official is in favor of closing the airport, which is true, by the way. And, Missouri's congressional delegation, specifically McCaskill and Blunt, are both in favor of closure. That's a fact. And, MoDOT is in agreement with the city as well. Fact. But that's OK, have your fun. Play your games. No one cares about this blog. It's meaningless.
ReplyDeleteIf this blog is meaningless, why did you bother to post?
ReplyDeleteIt must have some meaning otherwise this blog would not have been hit 48,498 times. Seems to me, there is some interest in it. ;-)
DeleteTo the real st. clair rocks,
ReplyDeleteYour post also shows your desperation
McCaskil and Blunt have no influence with the FAA.
They would need to change the law, they tried, they failed
MoDot does not tell the FAA what to do, the FAA tells MoDot what to do.
When the formal complaint is concluded, then the FAA will deal with the city and MoDot. I do know that the FAA will not be happy until your not happy.