Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

A Fort Worth Regional Airport


  • Please log in to reply
146 replies to this topic

#51 David Love

David Love

    Skyscraper Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,735 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, gothic structures, Harley Davidsons, active with Veterans Affairs. Making things out of wood and carbon fiber.

Posted 02 March 2012 - 10:51 AM

...I believe closing bases right now is a bit premature considering the state of things at the moment. It takes time and money to hand a base over and considering the roles NAS/JRB has served, it will take more money than most to get it ready for a public handover.

It's going to be interesting to see how things turn out, could go either way.

I find it a bit ironic that the Tower in Sundance Square is now a mixed use residential structure simply because they discovered asbestos on a number of floors after it went through a ventilation enhancement post tornado.

Better Business Bureau:  A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.


#52 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 03 March 2012 - 02:55 PM

Most of the stuff at the Alliance Trade Zone arrives by rail, not aircraft, from the Star-Telegram article.

Most of the product that passes through Alliance comes into ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach, Calif. It remains in U.S. Customs and Border Protection as it's transported to BNSF Railway's intermodal facility at Alliance. Foreign-trade zones allow companies to reduce importing costs and improve supply chain efficiencies. Duty payment is not required until the imported goods enter the U.S. for consumer use.

Read more here: http://www.star-tele...l#storylink=cpy



I have read these posts and haven't commented until now, but I think any commercial airline future in Ft Worth will be at Alliance. I don't expect the military to totally give up the base, even if they quit using it, they most likely would sit on it in case they change their mind. Also I don't think the neighbors would support an airport the same way the support a military base. I don't think they will put up with the noise and the construction of roads and facilities needed to turn the base into an airport or the higher taxes they will pay to accomplish all of that when Ft Worth already had a perfectly good airport just a few miles up the road.

#53 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 04 March 2012 - 01:17 AM

... I think any commercial airline future in Ft Worth will be at Alliance. I don't expect the military to totally give up the base.... Also I don't think the neighbors would support an airport the same way the support a military base.... the noise and the construction of roads and facilities needed to turn the base into an airport or the higher taxes they will pay to accomplish all of that when Ft Worth already had a perfectly good airport just a few miles up the road.


KL, Appreciating your decision to weigh in the debate.


Keller is one of those great communities that lie north of the city; and have been often characterized as having very little interest in the issues facing Fort Worth's traditional core areas that lie mainly within Loop 820. As the Star-Telegram recently found and then reported, many of the residents who live in North Fort Worth are surprised that they actually reside within the City of Fort Worth; and prefer to think of themselves as a part of Haslet, Westlake and environs; you would seem to be an exception. To the residents in your region of the city, Alliance is just a few miles up the road and minutes away; but I would suggest that for the traditional core areas of the city, this is hardly the case.


IMO, an Alliance regional airport is irrelevant to this debate for what I think are the following reasons. First, establishing for sake of argument, the Tarrant County Courthouse as the central point in this debate, both NAS/JRB (6miles/16mins) and Meacham (4.5miles/11mins) that are in Tarrant County would be closer to a majority of Fort Worth's core Tarrant County residents than would be an Alliance regional airport (18.3miles/24mins) in Denton County. Secondly, it is much closer to DFW than NAS/JRB; and that relatively close proximity of these two airports to one another goes to the essence of your point of "a perfectly good airport just a few miles up the road". Moreover and critical to this debate is how would establishing a regional airport at Alliance resolve the crisis that will arise from the closing of NAS/JRB. For comparison, shutting down our downtown main post office willing in all likelihood presents the city with a necessity to actively pursue a viable reuse of the abandoned building or risk potential dilapidation of the kind that is currently occurring at the T&P Warehouse.

To compare support for a military base to that of an airport is a specious argument. Military installations like Carswell are, in my long held view, the personification of our national security and defense. The public does not get to petition the kind of support that you are suggesting.

Base closure/downsizing is as difficult a political process as exists. Once the process has begun, there is rarely any turning back as the decisions will have been thoroughly vetted to arrive at what is in the best interest of national security. If that was not the case, military base closure would not or could not occur. 21st Century military is evolving into a high tech, cyber oriented platform requiring less personnel, land and infrastructure.

Much of the costlier infrastructure needed for a regional airport at NAS/JRB is already in place (runways/ramps/fuel storage/drainage/utilities). Major road access to a future terminal is already in existence. Instead of higher taxes, a regional airport would be an efficient use of taxes already invested in NAS/JRB. BTW, from my personal experience, I have never heard a regional jets that could equal the decibels noise of a Mach II F-16's.

Found two links detailing the fate of some closed military installations. Neither, IMO, is as appealing as would be a regional airport.

Abandoned & Little-Known Airfields: Texas - Southern Dallas area

What Happened to Those Closed Military Bases? « USNA or Bust!

#54 David Love

David Love

    Skyscraper Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,735 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, gothic structures, Harley Davidsons, active with Veterans Affairs. Making things out of wood and carbon fiber.

Posted 04 March 2012 - 06:05 PM

I have read these posts and haven't commented until now, but I think any commercial airline future in Ft Worth will be at Alliance. I don't expect the military to totally give up the base, even if they quit using it, they most likely would sit on it in case they change their mind. Also I don't think the neighbors would support an airport the same way the support a military base. I don't think they will put up with the noise and the construction of roads and facilities needed to turn the base into an airport or the higher taxes they will pay to accomplish all of that when Ft Worth already had a perfectly good airport just a few miles up the road.


...for the most part I agree.

Better Business Bureau:  A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.


#55 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 04 March 2012 - 09:56 PM


I have read these posts and haven't commented until now, but I think any commercial airline future in Ft Worth will be at Alliance. I don't expect the military to totally give up the base, even if they quit using it, they most likely would sit on it in case they change their mind. Also I don't think the neighbors would support an airport the same way the support a military base. I don't think they will put up with the noise and the construction of roads and facilities needed to turn the base into an airport or the higher taxes they will pay to accomplish all of that when Ft Worth already had a perfectly good airport just a few miles up the road.


...for the most part I agree.


More evidence -

Exec helped Gateway airport take off

#56 David Love

David Love

    Skyscraper Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,735 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, gothic structures, Harley Davidsons, active with Veterans Affairs. Making things out of wood and carbon fiber.

Posted 07 March 2012 - 02:21 PM

Gulf states' governors ask Obama to keep transport aircraft in Fort Worth

...from Chris Vaughn's article in the StarTelegram

I'd like to reiterate one of my first responses, "the loss of the NAS/JRB would be nothing short of devastating to the city of Fort Worth," and from the response we're seeing from Texas' representation it would be a serious blow to the state of Texas as well as the Gulf Coast.

Better Business Bureau:  A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.


#57 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 07 March 2012 - 08:32 PM

I'd like to reiterate one of my first responses, "the loss of the NAS/JRB would be nothing short of devastating to the city of Fort Worth," and from the response we're seeing from Texas' representation it would be a serious blow to the state of Texas as well as the Gulf Coast.


I am familiar with these press releases, and not to my surprised as I surely expected, the professional politicians came through with their shamelessly transparent tantrums of outrage.

One, it smacks of rank selfishness and narrow-mindedness!

The national institution that consistently receives one of if not the highest public approval ratings is our military and the professionals which run it. "Surprise" - every congressional district and state is squealing because their military pork might be taken away. We are to believe and trust these same professional politicians know better than our professional military what is best when it comes to our national defense. Blatantly questioning or micro managing the Pentagon as if they know best is a position that I would personally not take. I would prefer and respect them if they would allow the Pentagon to sort out the mess that Congress has created for them.

And two, it also smacks of rank hypocrisy!

Pork and ear-marks are bad, except when it is your pork and ear-marks.

Instead of our local politicians grilling the Pentagon, why don't Fort Worth and the Texas Delegation pay a visit to FAA-Southwest Region (Fort Worth). There they would discover a procedure with funds already appropriated that would address Fort Worth and NAS/JRB -

Military Airport Program

#58 David Love

David Love

    Skyscraper Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,735 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downtown Fort Worth
  • Interests:Architecture, gothic structures, Harley Davidsons, active with Veterans Affairs. Making things out of wood and carbon fiber.

Posted 07 March 2012 - 09:14 PM

One, it smacks of rank selfishness and narrow-mindedness!



I'm not sure we're reading the same articles here.

Better Business Bureau:  A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.


#59 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 07 March 2012 - 10:24 PM


One, it smacks of rank selfishness and narrow-mindedness!



I'm not sure we're reading the same articles here.


BTW, I cited a number of successfully reused former military installations that clearly refute your prognosis that Fort Worth would suffer devastating consequences as a result a NAS/JRB closure. I have even directed you to resources that are already appropriated to make the transition to civil use possible.

I continue to believe that our political delegation is acting in a derelict manner when it places all of our eggs in one basket. It is only a five minute drive down the North Freeway to the FAA offices where the possibilities awaits the beginning of a new civil aviation chapter for this city.

Now for rank selfishness and narrow-mindedness, I give you these. In spite of taking stimulus money which could be used for upgrading the readiness of local and state public safety first responders (fireman/police), the actions of these professional politicians speak for themselves. It will take a bit more time to put together all the congressional flip flopping, but here for now, are the examples coming from the five gulf coast governors –


Texas: Texas Gov. Who Refused Stimulus Funds Asks for Loan - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Louisiana: Jindal rejects La.'s stimulus share - Washington Times

Mississippi: Mississippi's governor shuns stimulus, stuns lawmaker » The Commercial Appeal

Alabama: Daily Kos: Alabama Governor Bob Riley is against Stimulus...

Florida: Rick Scott Can't Explain Why He Took Obama Stimulus Money After Denouncing It | ThinkProgress

#60 cjyoung

cjyoung

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,702 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stop Six/Echo Heights/Eastwood/Forest Hill/Meadowbrook/Fossill Creek

Posted 03 April 2012 - 04:43 PM

Keller is one of those great communities that lie north of the city; and have been often characterized as having very little interest in the issues facing Fort Worth's traditional core areas that lie mainly within Loop 820. As the Star-Telegram recently found and then reported, many of the residents who live in North Fort Worth are surprised that they actually reside within the City of Fort Worth; and prefer to think of themselves as a part of Haslet, Westlake and environs; you would seem to be an exception.


They think that because of their ZIP codes and Fort Worth hasn't done a good job of connecting the Alliance area to the rest of the city. The largest subdivision in Fort Worth (and Tarrant County), Woodland Springs has a ZIP of 76244 (formerly 76248), which is assign to Keller. The second largest, Sendera Ranch has a ZIP of 76052 which is assign to Haslet.

#61 wfsmith10

wfsmith10

    Newcomer

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Location:Downtown

Posted 04 April 2012 - 01:17 PM


Keller is one of those great communities that lie north of the city; and have been often characterized as having very little interest in the issues facing Fort Worth's traditional core areas that lie mainly within Loop 820. As the Star-Telegram recently found and then reported, many of the residents who live in North Fort Worth are surprised that they actually reside within the City of Fort Worth; and prefer to think of themselves as a part of Haslet, Westlake and environs; you would seem to be an exception.


They think that because of their ZIP codes and Fort Worth hasn't done a good job of connecting the Alliance area to the rest of the city. The largest subdivision in Fort Worth (and Tarrant County), Woodland Springs has a ZIP of 76244 (formerly 76248), which is assign to Keller. The second largest, Sendera Ranch has a ZIP of 76052 which is assign to Haslet.



No, they feel that way because they are out in the middle of no where, not even relativley close to Fort Worth proper.

#62 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 08 May 2012 - 12:35 PM

From an earlier post of mine:

I am assuming that a post-bankrupt AMR may want to concentrate the efforts of its American Airlines(AA) division on routes between twenty or so major U.S. business markets and its international routes; and that AMR may divest itself of American Eagle (AE) to enhance cash on hand. I take AMR at its word when it says that it will reemerge as a smaller more competitive carrier.... while concentrating AA considerable energy on business and international service will make a reemerged AA a very formidable competitor.



Two stories that I am following with great interest: (1) AMR Bankruptcy and (2) the NAS/JRB Mission.


Pleased to see that AMR (AA) is proceeding with its restructuring plans and hope that talk of take-over by another airline is nothing but talk. To me, the likelihood that American Eagle (AE) will be spun off is increasing; and that it will need a regional home airport in North Texas – Carswell!

American Airlines to increase international flights under restructuring plan | Airlines an...


Not so please to see our local politicians demonstrating such narrow thinking about Carswell as nothing other than a military site.

Bill seeks to stop move of C-130s from Fort Worth | Fort Worth | News from Fort Worth, D...

My wildest dreams come true: AA becomes the premier U.S. international carrier with alliances with UK-Germany-Japan-China-India counterparts; and AE (FW Carswell-based) competing head to head with Southwest (Love Field).

#63 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 07 July 2012 - 10:23 PM

With less than six months to go before automatic cuts in the Federal Budget take place as mandated by law, Fort Worth is feeling the pressure about having put all of its proverbial "NAS/JRB Eggs" in one basket by fighting tooth and nails against the re-assignment of the Carswell Air Guard Reserve to Montana instead of being prudent and considering some alternative plans.

I have lobbied for on this blog, and even written to Representative Granger tsuggesting that she might think of another use of Carswell should sequestration actually happens. Ms. Granger did not reply. Instead she is adamantly dug in by her own position so much that Fort Worth could find itself suffering a devastating blow to its local economy without having any immediate plans to salvage the situation if she is unsuccessful and budgetary cuts come into place. It does appear more and more likely that the current Congressional Leadership, for which she is of the majority, are not going to do anything to resolve the impeding budgetary crisis prior to the General Election.

With the actual FAA Regional Office located at I35W and Meacham Road, I implore the Mayor or a member of the City Council to at least make a visit to their office and to begin exploratory talks about the feasibility of using some of the space at Carswell NAS/JRB for commercial aviation. There is, if Governor Perry will accept, the federal funds that are pending Congressional authorization and ready to be sent to the states to begin new infrastructure and transportation; and the jobs that will be created.

This is getting very dicey, this stand-off between the President and the House of Representatives.

http://www.star-tele...s-threaten.html

#64 elpingüino

elpingüino

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 292 posts

Posted 07 July 2012 - 11:22 PM

My comment is not on the merits of a post-military contingency plan for Naval Air Station Fort Worth but on the merits of fighting to keep the National Guard's C-130s stationed here. The C-130s are worth fighting for not because of any indirect economic benefit but because Texas needs them during emergencies. During wildfires, hurricanes and the like, the National Guard can be (and is) dispatched by the governor, without going through the process of getting a federal disaster declaration. But if the Fort Worth planes get transferred to Montana, not only will the Air National Guard have no C-130s in Texas, it won't have any such transport planes in any of the Gulf Coast states. The closest ones would then be in Little Rock and Nashville. (Source: Granger presses Air Force over plan to move C-130s from Fort Worth) Especially given our divisive political climate, the fact that all 34 Texans in the House and Senate, from both parties, have come together on this matter testifies to the C-130s' importance to our state. (Source: Texas delegation pushes back against plans to move aircraft out of Fort Worth)

(Also, it's worth noting that if the C-130s do move to Montana, the 136th Airlift Wing will still stay at NAS Fort Worth; it will just fly reconnaissance planes instead. Source: Bill seeks to stop move of C-130s from Fort Worth)

So, I respectfully disagree with renamerusk's position, and I am thankful that Congresswoman Granger et al. are adamantly fighting to keep these Air Guard planes in Fort Worth to help keep Texas ready for the next disaster.

#65 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 08 July 2012 - 12:37 PM

My comment is not on the merits of a post-military contingency plan for Naval Air Station Fort Worth but on the merits of fighting to keep the National Guard's C-130s stationed here.
So, I respectfully disagree with renamerusk's position, and I am thankful that Congresswoman Granger et al. are adamantly fighting to keep these Air Guard planes in Fort Worth to help keep Texas ready for the next disaster.


Trying firstly to address your comment -

As one who readily admits as to not knowing the operational workings of the National Guard, I, as many do, have to rely upon and respect the administrative/operational expertise of the DOD, FEMA and other federal agencies tasked with protecting the homeland. They are professional military and civil servants who make their determinations, I believe, based upon strategy and not so much upon policy. From my perspective, Montana makes logistical sense for fighting Western States wildfires; and Arkansas/Tennessee makes logistical sense for assisting in hurricane disasters in the Gulf States. Logistically, Fort Worth arguably does not.

What does merit more comment is the position that has been taken by Congresswoman Granger.

It can be argued that Congresswoman Granger and the Gulf States Governors are placing politics ahead of an effective use of resources. Instead Granger seems to expend enormous vision on the Trinity River Vision or on concerns for Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and the Texas Coast, while her constituents are on the brink of their own local economic "wildfire/hurricane" if she and her Party cannot reach a compromise with the Administration.

I believe that there is considerable merit in a conversion or a dual use of Carswell NAS/JRB into civil commercial aviation as has be done successfully in other cities; and I continue to disagree and to find fault with Ms. Granger's lack of planning for a viable alternative should her strategy fails. While she will most likely be re-elected in November, thousands of her constituents may lose their jobs the following month. I am not thankful that she did not displayed vision when it came to this issue.

With new infrastructure and maintenance of the current stock of infrastructure sorely needed, the idea of a Fort Worth Regional Airport on the west side of the city is a sure way to soften the economic blow from this and future defense cuts.

Keep Fort Worth folksy

#66 youngalum

youngalum

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 539 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 11:19 AM

A westside commercial airport will never happen because too many folks with money and power live too close. It is hard to argue against the military for them, but you can bet big that a commercial airport would have the changed feelings out in full force.

#67 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 09 July 2012 - 02:43 PM

A westside commercial airport will never happen because too many folks with money and power live too close.


Would you say the same about the folks who live in Highland Park, University Park, Uptown Dallas which are nearby communities to Love Field?

Today's generation of commercial planes is much quieter than previous commercial planes; and exponentially quieter than military jets, bombers, and heavy duty aircraft.

Those points aside, a commercial airport by itself or in combination with the military is a sensible and best use alternative for Carswell. A significant curtailment of military activity is a distinct possibility with some very negative results to the surrounding area. Earlier, I posted in a blog, that the military impact upon the overall DFW Economy is less than 2 percent of GDP. I believe that a regional airport would generate at minimum 5 percent or greater to the DFW Economy and likely 15-20 percent for West Fort Worth in immediate long term employment, construction, food and hospitality services, and transportation (taxi, limos).

Reiterating, a regional airport to serve Western Tarrant County, Parker, Hood and Johnson Counties is an idea that has seen its time come.

By the way, I will be, God willing, seated on the first departure flight from Fort Worth Regional Airport no matter the destination.

#68 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 539 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 03:05 PM

I'll agree using Carswell as a civilian commercial airport makes sense. But Fort Worth doesn't need 4 civilian commercial airports. Carswell and Meacham would be competing against one another for market share and profitability, neither would be profitable if both remained in service. Alliance and DFW have established themselves within specific markets, so they shouldn't be hurt by adding an addition civilian commercial airport, just my opinion.

#69 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 09 July 2012 - 06:41 PM

...But Fort Worth doesn't need 4 civilian commercial airports....they shouldn't be hurt by adding an addition civilian commercial airport, just my opinion.


You left out Spinks, Luck and Saginaw Airfields that Carswell would be also competing with. All would be just as false an equivalency as your citing of a Commercialized Carswell competing with Alliance and Meacham, neither of which operate schedule commercial passenger service.

So as the DOD implements its own plans for what is the beginning of the eventual shut down of Carswell and military spending is curtailed because of budgetary constraints, we should do nothing to hurt DFW (Passenger Service) or Alliance (Non-passenger Service); and that is the reason; and let the west side endure economic recession. If that were the case, Dallas(Love Field) would not exist today. Until Alliance begins passenger service, it is really a non-issue; nor, for that matter, is Meacham.

A regional airport serving the western region of the Metroplex is guaranteed to be an economic and stable engine for that region. Carswell has the best infrastructure already in place and could be up and running quicker than Meacham; and would be more accessible for the west side and downtown than Alliance.

What is so frustrating is that this is a gift to Fort Worth that perhaps comes along once in a lifetime and it appears our leadership is acting like a "deer in the road light"

#70 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,335 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 10 July 2012 - 09:13 AM

A significant curtailment of military activity is a distinct possibility

It seems like every time there is a curtailment, it gets re-imagined and put to use.
My blog: Doohickie

#71 Yossarian

Yossarian

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 517 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 10:31 AM


A westside commercial airport will never happen because too many folks with money and power live too close.


Would you say the same about the folks who live in Highland Park, University Park, Uptown Dallas which are nearby communities to Love Field?

Today's generation of commercial planes is much quieter than previous commercial planes; and exponentially quieter than military jets, bombers, and heavy duty aircraft.

Those points aside, a commercial airport by itself or in combination with the military is a sensible and best use alternative for Carswell. A significant curtailment of military activity is a distinct possibility with some very negative results to the surrounding area. Earlier, I posted in a blog, that the military impact upon the overall DFW Economy is less than 2 percent of GDP. I believe that a regional airport would generate at minimum 5 percent or greater to the DFW Economy and likely 15-20 percent for West Fort Worth in immediate long term employment, construction, food and hospitality services, and transportation (taxi, limos).

Reiterating, a regional airport to serve Western Tarrant County, Parker, Hood and Johnson Counties is an idea that has seen its time come.

By the way, I will be, God willing, seated on the first departure flight from Fort Worth Regional Airport no matter the destination.



Not necessarily. From a commercial standpoint, traffic is vectored to correlate with instrument procedures even on clear days so no direct overflights of the "tony" westside neighborhoods on downwind legs. As to private aviation, I would bet that the 4 minute drive down Roaring Springs from Westover to a new Texas Jet at Carswell to board your G550 for a quick jaunt to Aspen for the weekend is preferable to the 20-25 minute drive meandering through the bario to Meacham.

I think think if a Carswell option are opened to civilian flights (commercial and private), most operators out of Meacham would move (the flight schools could move to Spinks - the biggest has already left to solidify their ops in Addison but that is another story & FW f-up), and Meacham could be closed and redeveloped along the lines of the old Mueller airport in Austin.

#72 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:35 PM

Not necessarily. From a commercial standpoint, traffic is vectored to correlate with instrument procedures even on clear days so no direct overflights of the "tony" westside neighborhoods on downwind legs.....I think if a Carswell option are opened to civilian flights (commercial and private), most operators out of Meacham would move... and Meacham could be closed and redeveloped along the lines of the old Mueller airport in Austin.


Great points!

Today's Breaking News: Delta Express (Regional Carrier) to begin flight between Dallas Love Field and Atlanta, GA.

At least Fort Worth has no intention of harming DFW Airport.

#73 RD Milhollin

RD Milhollin

    Surrounding Cities Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,538 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Haltom City

Posted 10 July 2012 - 10:38 PM

Today's Breaking News: Delta Express (Regional Carrier) to begin flight between Dallas Love Field and Atlanta, GA.

At least Fort Worth has no intention of harming DFW Airport.


I remain a skeptic about the viability of Meacham as a local passenger air destination today. The neighborhood around the airport does not hold the amenities that a passenger airport demands, it is not surrounded by the usual air-passenger demographic, and compared to DAL, is sort of off on the edge of development. Yes, the Alliance area to the north is growing, but it is looking to be industrial in base rather than business/commercial like in North Dallas, Richardson, etc., and the entire northwest corner of Tarrant County is about as developed as rural Arkansas. The current use of Meacham Field as a center for flight instruction, airplane maintenance, and corporate jets for oil and gas companies looks pretty suited to the economic realities, which are most certainly going to change in the future. A company looking to establish scheduled passenger service there would want to be sure there is sufficient repetitive destination demand for flyers to and from which ever cities they might serve (probably Houston Hobby, maybe Midland-Odessa, Tulsa, ?) or to hubs of airlines without significant service at DFW not heavily served by AA (UA to DEN. US to Phoenix, ?). Specialty flights to Las Vegas a couple of times a week, probably as charters might work as well. But as long as there is sufficient excess capacity at DFW and only marginal demand from Tarrant County, especially as compared to Dallas and Collin, then DFW will most likely seem the best bet for airlines wishing to serve Fort Worth. This is probably good considering the budget crunch Fort Worth is in, as spending funds speculatively right now on airport improvements for passenger service that may not come for years that may not be feasible, or even wise.

#74 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:56 AM

I remain a skeptic about the viability of Meacham as a local passenger air destination today......or to hubs of airlines without significant service at DFW..... But as long as there is sufficient excess capacity at DFW and only marginal demand from Tarrant County, especially as compared to Dallas and Collin, then DFW will most likely seem the best bet for airlines wishing to serve Fort Worth...... This is probably good considering the budget crunch Fort Worth is in, as spending funds speculatively right now on airport improvements for passenger service that may not come for years that may not be feasible, or even wise.

There are those who really believe that Meacham Field and Alliance Airport are viable locations for a regional airport to serve Fort Worth. I am not one of those believers; and particularly not a believer of a Meacham Field Idea. For starters, I believe that Alliance nor Meacham have anything to do with the plight of Carswell/NASJRB; never have and never will. The fate of Carswell will not impact either one. I do agree that in time Alliance could become a regional airport to serve a Northern Tarrant/ Southwest Denton/Wise County Region.

So what is the issue at hand?


Even though some are still in disbelief of the impending and probable downsizing of military activity at Carswell or the eventuality that Carswell could be totally decommissioned in the future, there is one issue currently facing us: what to do with Carswell?

Plan#1 - Convert it to an industrial and manufacturing site. How likely is that plan when manufacturing is and will continue to be out sourced overseas.

Plan#2 - Convert it to a residential community. Can one imagine a residential community even closer to Lockheed. Not me. Or a speedway for drag racing.

Plan#3 – Do nothing, just mow the grass and weeds; maybe agriculture.

DFW can no longer sustain its role as the sole airport in the DFW region. Sufficient excess capacity at DFW is a non issue. Instead, the airline industry is turning towards the more profitable and less labor intensive regional air service business model. No more time and cost inefficient hub/connection model. The new plan is point to point service. There is actually a plan for a Collin County Regional Airport someday to serve the Frisco/Allen/McKinney Region. The trend in the future will be multiple regional airports. (See Chicago/LA).

In Fort Worth's 30 Year Plan, growth is projected to occur to the west (Parker County Ranch Development) and to the south following the Chisholm Trail Parkway. There is also a ridiculous Outer Loop Highway in conceptual planning stages. Given this projection, the demand should be there sooner than later in Tarrant/Johnson/Parker County Region that will mirror what is in Dallas/Collin County.

One can speculate about Meacham, but realistically it does not address the projected growth west and south of Fort Worth, whereas Carswell does. The one thing that Meacham did prove is that Fort Worth can support regional air service when it does not feel constrained by its covenant with DFW; a covenant, by the way, that Dallas long ago breached.

Plan#4 - Only Carswell is really in play because of the Pentagon Review of its Mission Plans; once again with emphasis, not Alliance or Meacham. Only the site that is Carswell today is a prime candidate for a regional airport for its has the advantages of having a prime location and of having prime infrastructure already on the ground. A modest passenger terminal could be built, somewhat like the satellite terminal once used at DFW by American Eagle to capitalize on these distinctive advantages.

The real issue today is to have a viable plan to rescue the west side when and if Carswell NAS/JRB is no longer generating the economic impact that we have become use to. A regional airport seems like a very plausible and practical plan that will serve the west side for many years ongoing. We can follow the lead of Dallas; or we can be left behind.

Fly Fort Worth!

#75 Yossarian

Yossarian

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 517 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 06:20 AM


I remain a skeptic about the viability of Meacham as a local passenger air destination today......or to hubs of airlines without significant service at DFW..... But as long as there is sufficient excess capacity at DFW and only marginal demand from Tarrant County, especially as compared to Dallas and Collin, then DFW will most likely seem the best bet for airlines wishing to serve Fort Worth...... This is probably good considering the budget crunch Fort Worth is in, as spending funds speculatively right now on airport improvements for passenger service that may not come for years that may not be feasible, or even wise.

There are those who really believe that Meacham Field and Alliance Airport are viable locations for a regional airport to serve Fort Worth. I am not one of those believers; and particularly not a believer of a Meacham Field Idea. For starters, I believe that Alliance nor Meacham have anything to do with the plight of Carswell/NASJRB; never have and never will. The fate of Carswell will not impact either one. I do agree that in time Alliance could become a regional airport to serve a Northern Tarrant/ Southwest Denton/Wise County Region.

So what is the issue at hand?


Even though some are still in disbelief of the impending and probable downsizing of military activity at Carswell or the eventuality that Carswell could be totally decommissioned in the future, there is one issue currently facing us: what to do with Carswell?

Plan#1 - Convert it to an industrial and manufacturing site. How likely is that plan when manufacturing is and will continue to be out sourced overseas.

Plan#2 - Convert it to a residential community. Can one imagine a residential community even closer to Lockheed. Not me. Or a speedway for drag racing.

Plan#3 – Do nothing, just mow the grass and weeds; maybe agriculture.

DFW can no longer sustain its role as the sole airport in the DFW region. Sufficient excess capacity at DFW is a non issue. Instead, the airline industry is turning towards the more profitable and less labor intensive regional air service business model. No more time and cost inefficient hub/connection model. The new plan is point to point service. There is actually a plan for a Collin County Regional Airport someday to serve the Frisco/Allen/McKinney Region. The trend in the future will be multiple regional airports. (See Chicago/LA).

In Fort Worth's 30 Year Plan, growth is projected to occur to the west (Parker County Ranch Development) and to the south following the Chisholm Trail Parkway. There is also a ridiculous Outer Loop Highway in conceptual planning stages. Given this projection, the demand should be there sooner than later in Tarrant/Johnson/Parker County Region that will mirror what is in Dallas/Collin County.

One can speculate about Meacham, but realistically it does not address the projected growth west and south of Fort Worth, whereas Carswell does. The one thing that Meacham did prove is that Fort Worth can support regional air service when it does not feel constrained by its covenant with DFW; a covenant, by the way, that Dallas long ago breached.

Plan#4 - Only Carswell is really in play because of the Pentagon Review of its Mission Plans; once again with emphasis, not Alliance or Meacham. Only the site that is Carswell today is a prime candidate for a regional airport for its has the advantages of having a prime location and of having prime infrastructure already on the ground. A modest passenger terminal could be built, somewhat like the satellite terminal once used at DFW by American Eagle to capitalize on these distinctive advantages.

The real issue today is to have a viable plan to rescue the west side when and if Carswell NAS/JRB is no longer generating the economic impact that we have become use to. A regional airport seems like a very plausible and practical plan that will serve the west side for many years ongoing. We can follow the lead of Dallas; or we can be left behind.

Fly Fort Worth!


I would agree with just about every point you have made save for one. Infrastructure. Aside from the runway which is more than adequate for any type of flight ops, the entire taxiway system would have to be redone as it currently is insufficient for efficient commercial and private usage. For that matter, a shorter second runway would probably also be needed as well.

As to the inevitability of the JRB being significantly affected in any "downsizing" by the Pentagon, don't make straight line assumptions about the current political situation in DC. an administration change in January would all but make your concerns over the JRB moot.

#76 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 11 July 2012 - 12:19 PM

I would agree with just about every point you have made save for one. Infrastructure.....As to the inevitability of the JRB being significantly affected in any "downsizing" ....

Yossarian, I have quickly come to appreciate your seemingly broad based knowledge and insight regarding the aviation industry. Your information is very useful.

At some point, the country must begin to rebuild its infrastructure. I think new transportation projects will be essential to a vibrant economy and to Fort Worth as it approaches 1 million residents. Upgrading the current infrastructure at Carswell is not an obstacle, but is a matter of will as is currently being demonstrated by the significant upgrading of both Love Field and Houston Hobby. If anything Fort Worth would be ahead by having something to improve upon rather than having to start from scratch.

As for the current political situation in Washington, a change in administration will hardly change the geo-political landscape. The threats are different than when there were two or more superpowers and a divided Europe. Downsizing of the Military will be almost certainly force upon the country do to two principle factors: the type of military threat to the country; and the increasing needs of an aging population. It is generally agreed these days that the U.S. can no longer be the Policeman of the World. Some what off subject, but hopefully an answer to "JRB moot".

Keep Fort Worth folksy

#77 Yossarian

Yossarian

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 517 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 01:23 PM


I would agree with just about every point you have made save for one. Infrastructure.....As to the inevitability of the JRB being significantly affected in any "downsizing" ....

Yossarian, I have quickly come to appreciate your seemingly broad based knowledge and insight regarding the aviation industry. Your information is very useful.

At some point, the country must begin to rebuild its infrastructure. I think new transportation projects will be essential to a vibrant economy and to Fort Worth as it approaches 1 million residents. Upgrading the current infrastructure at Carswell is not an obstacle, but is a matter of will as is currently being demonstrated by the significant upgrading of both Love Field and Houston Hobby. If anything Fort Worth would be ahead by having something to improve upon rather than having to start from scratch.

As for the current political situation in Washington, a change in administration will hardly change the geo-political landscape. The threats are different than when there were two or more superpowers and a divided Europe. Downsizing of the Military will be almost certainly force upon the country do to two principle factors: the type of military threat to the country; and the increasing needs of an aging population. It is generally agreed these days that the U.S. can no longer be the Policeman of the World. Some what off subject, but hopefully an answer to "JRB moot".

Keep Fort Worth folksy


Last paragraph first. There are less people than you would think that hold the view that the US can "no longer be the policeman of the world". By and large history has indicated that a "policeman" is indeed needed and that such role has best been played by liberal democracies in the modern era (1700-today: not much of a need for one until then anyway as most of the world was disconnected and regional hegemony was controlled by bi-polar interests). For more on the history of such arrangements, I would recommend a book by the historian Arthur Herman titled "To Rule the Waves". As to how the US continues to preserve local peace and "police" rogue nation outbursts in the future, I would agree with Thomas P.M. Barnett's analysis that our military needs to become more littoral as opposed to blue water as major power wars are probably a thing of the past. That being said, such a military need not necessarily be smaller but does need to be significantly more integrated between the branches which actually argues in Joint Reserve Bases' favor going forward. Also, just because from a hypothetical standpoint "Carswell" could be abandoned by military ops does not necessarily translate into the economic doomsday you intimate in that I don't think such an abandonment would remove the true economic engine out there - Lockheed.

But back to the main point of the thread; a west side airport on the model of Love or Hobby. For those arguing against the need based on carrying capacity; consider the following: The Walsh ranch development is finally going to break ground in the next few years which will only exacerbate growth in eastern Parker and western tarrant counties. The SW parkway will be done by then which will have the effect on Johnson County (Burleson/Cleburn) that the Dallas North Tollway had on Plano/Frisco (just fly over that area now and you can see the growth already taking shape without the new road). It is completely plausible that by 2020 or 2025 that the population of the western/southwestern part of the Metroplex who would find it easier to commute to a "Carswell" airport (I would recommend FW re-name it "back" to Amon Carter as a middle finger to dallas) rather than DFW much less Love for hops to Houston/San Antonio/etc. will approach 350-400K+. That is a market twice the size of Midland/Odessa and WN serves four destinations from there with 737s not to mention service from both AA Eagle) and UA. Another stat to consider for the naysayers relative to having three commercial airports in the Metroplex; by 2020 given present population growth estimates, the Metroplex will have a population well over 7.5 million if not approaching 8 million. That is the population roughly of the greater Los Angeles area in the late sixties to early 70s give or take a few hundred thousand on either side and the LA area at that time was/is almost the same size geographically and had in 1970 commercial service available from 5 airports (LAX, LGB, BUR, ONT, and SNA), granted its primary airport was/is smaller in size but today demonstrates the capacity to pass more passengers yearly that does DFW.

#78 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 11 July 2012 - 03:06 PM

Last paragraph first. There are less people than you would think that hold the view that the US can "no longer be the policeman of the world"..... As to how the US continues to preserve local peace and "police" rogue nation outbursts in the future.....But back to the main point of the thread; a west side airport on the model of Love or Hobby...


Quick replies offered relative to my normal takes: To your first paragraph: President Eisenhower warned against the military industrial complex. He rightfully predicted that politicians would use the military for their own political agenda and pork. Eisenhower was a professional military man and preferred to be remembered as that as to being remembered as a politician. The DOD is staffed by thousands of professional military people cut from the same cloth as Eisenhower. I have to believe and trust their judgment about how best to defend the homeland while at the same time, adjusting to the new reality that their unlimited funding cannot continue into the future.

We ought not fear rogue nations, only rogue individuals. The war against rogue individuals is not won with raw brute strength or asymmetric warfare, but rather, sophisticated and unparallel intelligence, surveillance and smart weaponry.

The military enjoys the highest public approval of anything that the government does for good reason: the trust that the public has in the military. I trust the strategic advice of our military because our military does not have or should not favor any local political agenda, only the goal of defending the homeland.

As for your second paragraph: Agree, agree, agree!

#79 Yossarian

Yossarian

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 517 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 03:47 PM


Last paragraph first. There are less people than you would think that hold the view that the US can "no longer be the policeman of the world"..... As to how the US continues to preserve local peace and "police" rogue nation outbursts in the future.....But back to the main point of the thread; a west side airport on the model of Love or Hobby...


Quick replies offered relative to my normal takes: To your first paragraph: President Eisenhower warned against the military industrial complex. He rightfully predicted that politicians would use the military for their own political agenda and pork. Eisenhower was a professional military man and preferred to be remembered as that as to being remembered as a politician. The DOD is staffed by thousands of professional military people cut from the same cloth as Eisenhower. I have to believe and trust their judgment about how best to defend the homeland while at the same time, adjusting to the new reality that their unlimited funding cannot continue into the future.

We ought not fear rogue nations, only rogue individuals. The war against rogue individuals is not won with raw brute strength or asymmetric warfare, but rather, sophisticated and unparallel intelligence, surveillance and smart weaponry.

The military enjoys the highest public approval of anything that the government does for good reason: the trust that the public has in the military. I trust the strategic advice of our military because our military does not have or should not favor any local political agenda, only the goal of defending the homeland.

As for your second paragraph: Agree, agree, agree!


Not sure I would totally agree with you on Ike's message; a little too Oliver Stoneish I think. But others can read for themselves relative to the"whole" of the context of that over quoted and in my opinion misunderstood part of his farewell speech...

Farewell Address
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
17 January 1961

Good evening, my fellow Americans: First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunity they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.

Three days from now, after a half century of service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on questions of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation.

My own relations with Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation well rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So my official relationship with Congress ends in a feeling on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations.

To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people.

Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us a grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle – with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration; the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages – balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.

Of these, I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

So – in this my last good night to you as your President – I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I – my fellow citizens – need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.

Thank you, and good night.

Source: US Government Archives

#80 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 12 July 2012 - 12:22 AM

Not sure I would totally agree with you on Ike's message; a little too Oliver Stoneish I think. But others can read for themselves relative to the"whole" of the context of that over quoted and in my opinion misunderstood part of his farewell speech...


For the very first time, I had the opportunity, thanks to you, to read the entire text of President Eisenhower's Final Address to the People. I would have to say that it is one of the most foretelling addresses of the 20th Century and remains ever so relevant today as it was when it was delivered more than half a century ago. Also, it is interesting to note that Eisenhower was the executor of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's original plan to build an Interstate Highway System which became the most successful and economically vital infrastructure project in the 20th Century American Economy and was equal or exceeded the construction of the trans-continental railroad.

Finally, I feel fairly confident in saying that Eisenhower would approve of the Pentagon's latest decision about Carswell and that he would also champion the infrastructure improvement and prosperity to be gained the by converting or sharing the Carswell installation for some civil aviation purposes.

I will let his own words express what I believe he was saying in warning us about petty local political agendas; particularly the narrow agenda which has been taken by our local and state representatives and who openly questioned and ridicule the judgment of the military regarding Carswell NAS/JRB. :

"But each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration; the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages – balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration".

"The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress".

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society".

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist".

"Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect".


President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Keep Fort Worth folksy

#81 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,849 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 12 July 2012 - 07:33 AM

Not sure where this thread is going (posting the entire text of Ike’s speech?). But, aside from historical developments and political decisions, let’s not forget the profound influence of aviation technology. My guess is that future revolutionary changes in aviation tech will be a major factor in determining the dimension and geographic location of airports. Tech changes such as scram jets, VTOL, unmanned drones, and even suborbital craft (Virgin Galactic and its future competitors) are perhaps long-term but they are coming.

#82 Doohickie

Doohickie

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,335 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:76123

Posted 12 July 2012 - 10:07 AM

I don't see VTOL having an influence on normal passenger flights. It is a very inefficient way to get off the ground. Where land is available, conventional takeoff will remain the normal way aircraft get off the ground.

Suborbital will make a dent, though. If an aircraft is free of atmospheric drag, it can get around the earth much more quickly than current aircraft. The shuttle takes 90 minutes to orbit the earth (give or take). A craft that can get up close to that can get around the world in a small fraction of the time a normal flight takes. That was the whole point of the National Aerospace Plan (NASP) program back in the 1980s. Too bad it got canceled.
My blog: Doohickie

#83 Yossarian

Yossarian

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 517 posts

Posted 12 July 2012 - 03:05 PM

I don't see VTOL having an influence on normal passenger flights. It is a very inefficient way to get off the ground. Where land is available, conventional takeoff will remain the normal way aircraft get off the ground.

Suborbital will make a dent, though. If an aircraft is free of atmospheric drag, it can get around the earth much more quickly than current aircraft. The shuttle takes 90 minutes to orbit the earth (give or take). A craft that can get up close to that can get around the world in a small fraction of the time a normal flight takes. That was the whole point of the National Aerospace Plan (NASP) program back in the 1980s. Too bad it got canceled.


All correct. VTOL is pretty limited to the tonnage it can get airborne from initial lifting. As of today, suborbital is limited by $/tonnage that can be lifted. As an interesting aside, the RR Olympus engines that were employed by Concorde were actually more efficient at significant altitude and the higher the speed that they were traveling. Whereas the first part is generally true of all turbine aircraft the latter is a little counter intuitive. The problem was with Concorde as is still true today that at ground level (sea to ~ 30,000'ish; of course trying to get Concorde off a runway fully loaded at really high elevation points like El Alto would require runways in excess of 5 miles in length if it would get airborne at all) those types of engines are very costly to operate to get the weight airborne.

The last problem relative to suborbital flying lies with the actual definition of "flying". In essence, when you get too high the air molecules are so far apart that the "stickiness" of the air required to generate sufficient lift over the airfoils to maintain "flight" becomes impossible. At that point, a propulsion system which can maintain a higher thrust than the craft's weight is required and the craft thus ceases to "fly" but travels more akin to the characteristics of a ballistic missile. Such a propulsion system for a commercial aircraft is today beyond expensive and the government's experiments with scramjet and ramjet technologies have been sadly spotty. And then lastly from a commercial standpoint (passengers) you have the inertia question to answer relative to the acceleration phase of such a flight up to speeds like Mach 7+: it would not be a very pleasant experience for any but the best prepared (trained) traveler.

#84 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 01 August 2012 - 11:17 PM

By now, it is probably known to everyone that I am a proponent ad nausem of using Carswell NAS/JRB or a portion of the facility for commercial airline service as I believe that it is an installation that could be easily transitioned into a regional airport for Fort Worth and create thousands of airline related jobs.

Today, however it appears that Carswell's C-130 fleet is getting a two-year stay as reported by departing U.S. Senator Hutchinson, Texas; and that the opportunity to transition the installation into a long term economic engine for western Fort Worth will be put off for two more years.

Here is her statement:
http://hutchison.sen...release&id=1187

The decision is temporary and is not a permanent decision because Carswell will face the same evaluation in 2014; and so will Fort Worth.

Here is something to understand:

The U.S. spends more on its military than does the next 18 nations combined. The fifteen largest spenders on their military are as follows:

http://en.wikipedia....ry_expenditures

Lastly, it has become clear that the U.S. can not continue or can not afford to spend the amounts of money that it spends today into the future.

http://www.newsobser...ts-time-to.html

#85 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 17 August 2012 - 07:57 PM

Gulf states' governors ask Obama to keep transport aircraft in Fort Worth

.... "the loss of the NAS/JRB would be nothing short of devastating.....it would be a serious blow to the state of Texas as well as the Gulf Coast.


Tangential or false convergence?

Excerpted from a news story published in the Star-Telegram 03/06/12: The unit's C-130s have become regular players during Gulf storms, including Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 and Ike and Gustav in 2008. Military and political leaders say MC-12s are not practical for disasters because they cannot carry passengers or supplies.

The Gulf states' governors bypassed Air Force leadership and went straight to the White House with their complaints.

"Texas and the Gulf Coast are under constant threat of hurricanes, wildfires and floods," they wrote in the letter. "These C-130s have answered the call to support Gulf Coast States to counter these threats at a moment's notice. ... Mr. President, it makes no sense to move the assets of a perfectly functioning and experienced unit that has supported us well to establish the exact same capability in a state with none of this experience or any ties to the states that traditionally require these assets for emergency response."

The Texas congressional delegation believes that the Air Force will have to spend $80 million on infrastructure improvements to the Air Guard base in Montana and $20 million more to retrain two wings' pilots and maintenance personnel on new aircraft……

"I know Montana does not have the hangars necessary to house C-130s and the Montana pilots will have to be trained to fly the C-130s," Granger said in the hearing. "The committee deserves to know how many additional tax dollars you intend to spend on military construction, operations and maintenance, and other funding necessary to transition the C-130s to Montana."


The argument that the C-130 should be kept in Fort Worth because of constant threat of hurricanes and floods seems some what hollow in light of the current and constant threat of wildfires in the Western States. These states, their residents and their wildlife are being roasted; probably much greater than any 48hour hurricane event. Perhaps Texas and the four Gulf governors should be called out!

http://fwbusinesspre...SubSectionID=38

#86 Electricron

Electricron

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 539 posts

Posted 18 August 2012 - 11:21 PM

The advantage Fort Worth has over Montana for reservists and national guard units is the ease of pilot accessibility because DFW is a major airline hub.
Fort Worth needs to keep pointing that simple fact out.

#87 johnfwd

johnfwd

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,849 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:southwest
  • Interests:Running, bicycling, bowling, nightclub life, science, technology.

Posted 14 October 2013 - 09:30 AM

A reminder that the Wright Amendment flight restrictions will be lifted next year.  Note that this Star-Telegram article is datelined "Dallas" and focuses on plans for extended flights by Southwest Airlines.  Maybe some time in the distant future, Fort Worth will catch up on regular commercial passenger aviation, as well.

 

http://www.star-tele...ent-flight.html



#88 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,180 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 15 October 2013 - 07:14 AM

...Maybe some time in the distant future, Fort Worth will catch up on regular commercial passenger aviation, as well....

 

I doubt it. Fort Worth was sold a bill of goods on the Wright Amendment. They kept up their end of the bargain, while Dallas reneged. The best Fort Worth could hope for now would be to attract someone like Allegiant to fly charter MD-88s Meacham to Vegas on occasion.



#89 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 15 October 2013 - 02:39 PM

 

Where in downtown Fort Worth are you going to place your airport? The closest available will be Meacham Field. 

Airlines have tried to use it in the past, all have failed. Good luck!

 

With some research, you will learn that many cities share commercial air service in conjunction with DOD use.  There is a funded joint FAA/DOD program to develop and expand this concept already in place.  I am flying to Albuquerque in October whose air service, I believe, is being provided in just this way....Meacham Field is not Fort Worth’s sole alternative....With the Love Field/Wright Amendment ending soon; with airlines now operating in a less regulated industry than in the past, and with American Airlines no longer dominating the DFW market as it once did, I think Fort Worth has plenty of luck and fortune on its side. 

 

 

 

 

...Maybe some time in the distant future, Fort Worth will catch up on regular commercial passenger aviation, as well....

 

I doubt it. Fort Worth was sold a bill of goods on the Wright Amendment. They kept up their end of the bargain, while Dallas reneged. The best Fort Worth could hope for now would be to attract someone like Allegiant to fly charter MD-88s Meacham to Vegas on occasion.

 

 

I can now confirm having just returned from there that the airport that serves Albuquerque, New Mexico is both a DOD installation (Kirtland AFB) and a commercial aviation airport (Sunport). 

 

The airport in Albuquerque operates at a fraction of what would ultimately be a multi-billion dollars and a political and legal nightmare for the investors at Texas Central Railways just to get HSR up and running.

 

The end of the Wright Amendment in 2014 will open the door to Fort Worth actually considering the potential of using NAS/JRB as a commercial aviation airport; and that it will also make a HSR connection between Fort Worth via Dallas to Houston more of an economic risk than ever.  I believe that the airlines and higher efficiency cars are poised to take HSR down; especially one so naively conceived as TCR. --- their campaigning reminds me of the the barnum and bailey roll out by Dream Vision who were looking for anyone to buy their promises.

 

I would not be surprise, but disappointed,  that a campaign is not already discreetly underway to develop Fort Worth Carswells Regional Airport. 

 

Fort Worth over everyone!

 

 

I



#90 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,180 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 16 October 2013 - 05:08 PM

There are several large commercial airports in the US that serve both commercial and military users. Just off the top of my head: DSM, MSP, STL, FSD, PIA, DLH...



#91 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 19 February 2014 - 09:12 PM

I thought renamerusk would like this.  Last week I attended a Transportation Town Hall in Colleyville put on by state rep. Capriglione.  He had a pretty fair sized group of state reps. and maybe a senator or two plus various folks from state agencies such as TexDot as well as local and county officials.  The focus was on road building, but county commissioner Fickes said that he and others felt that the growth that is projected to continue would require a third airport and he felt that DFW would not be the only option going forward for Tarrant County.  They vaguely mentioned a potential location as Northwest of DFW, but I did not get a feeling they were talking about Alliance.  They showed population growth graphs that showed Tarrant County with more population than Dallas County as soon as 2020.  They also pointed out that growth is rampant in Denton and Collin counties.

 

Overall the meeting didn't seem to try and make a point or draw a conclusion, they just tossed out a bunch of information.  They said that the amendment passed in 2003 that allowed the state to issue bonds for road construction had a limit on the total amount of indebtedness and that would be reached either this year or 2015.  Then no more borrowing. They brought up the old line about gas tax not being increased since 1991 and hasn't kept up with inflation. They also said there will be one proposition on the November ballot that will help get some money if the voters pass it.  They weren't real clear on how it worked, or I was just trying to work out in my mind why they didn't put it on the ballot after the 2013 session, instead of a year later.  

 

Rail didn't come up until someone asked a question about TexRail and everyone looked like a deer in the headlights until Commissioner Fickes said that was a T deal and he thought that the environmental report and agreements with DART would be signed within the next 6 months.  He said Grapevine has $60 million in escrow toward the project and that the county has $20 million waiting to see if it will get off the ground.  So $80 million from those 2 sources sounds good if you put it with whatever Fort Worth has on hand.

 

The Q&A was mostly people telling toll road horror stories about being overcharged.  In fact time ran out with a line of folks at the microphone.  Thats all folks.



#92 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,180 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 19 February 2014 - 09:44 PM

It's not clear to me from what you posted whether these folks were talking about a small reliever airport like Spinks or another commercial passenger airport. From a pilot perspective, DFW is one of the most efficient airports in the country as far as getting into and out of quickly and without much hassle. Love Field actually reduces some of the efficiency but not too bad. I would be a big hit to the airspace efficiency of the region to add another airport with commercial airline service. Look no futher than the gridlock of New York City and the triumverate of EWR, LGA and JFK to see just how inefficient scheduled operations can become when airspace gets saturated.

 

Our larger neighbor to the south, Houston, demonstrates that two airports is plenty. IAH and HOU are separated by a much greater distance than DFW and DAL which contributes to their efficiency, but IAH is less than half the airport that DFW is. DFW really is unmatched throughout the US and has plenty of capacity still available at the terminal facilities. I would much rather see options like rail connecting DFW to population centers to bring folks in and out for flights.



#93 hannerhan

hannerhan

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 667 posts
  • Location:Ft Worth

Posted 20 February 2014 - 08:57 AM

Amen to that.  DFW Airport is one of the best things to ever happen to Fort Worth and it seems to me that the more Fort Worth can take advantage of it, the better.  DFW is on a roll right now with quite a bit of new international routes, and it's set up long-term to be one of the major hubs in the U.S. for international traffic (think stopovers between Europe/Asia and South America, etc.).  Read the book Aerotropolis if you haven't...it makes a strong case for the Dallas/Fort Worth region and DFW Airport being set up to be basically the perfect model of the 21st century city. 

 

I think Fort Worth would be way better off figuring out how to get mass transit to DFW than screwing with another regional airport.  Love Field already serves the purpose of keeping American/DFW honest on pricing (or at least it will once Wright expires), and DFW is nowhere near capacity in terms of traffic, so there is no need to gum up the works with another airport.



#94 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 20 February 2014 - 05:03 PM

I thought renamerusk would like this....The focus was on road building, but county commissioner Fickes said that he and others felt that the growth that is projected to continue would require a third airport and he felt that DFW would not be the only option going forward for Tarrant County.  They vaguely mentioned a potential location as Northwest of DFW, but I did not get a feeling they were talking about Alliance....Tarrant County with more population than Dallas County as soon as 2020. ....Rail didn't come up until someone asked a question about TexRail and everyone looked like a deer in the headlights.....

 

 

.....DFW is one of the most efficient airports in the country as far as getting into and out of quickly and without much hassle. Love Field actually reduces some of the efficiency but not too bad. I would be a big hit to the airspace efficiency of the region to add another airport with commercial airline service.....DFW really is unmatched throughout the US and has plenty of capacity still available at the terminal facilities. I would much rather see options like rail connecting DFW to population centers to bring folks in and out for flights.

 

 

 

I think Fort Worth would be way better off figuring out how to get mass transit to DFW than screwing with another regional airport.  Love Field already serves the purpose of keeping American/DFW honest on pricing (or at least it will once Wright expires), and DFW is nowhere near capacity in terms of traffic, so there is no need to gum up the works with another airport.

 

I will be disagreeing with several of your points because I do not find them to be valid justifications for Fort Worth not having a regional airport.

A Regional Airport for Fort Worth is not ultimately about piloting or capacity at DFW.   Those were not the issues being argued for when Dallas decided to renew service at Love Field.  Neither was there an argument for keeping Love Field in operations to check air prices by American or other airlines.

The primary argument for Love Field’s continuing operations has always been the convenience that Love Field provides for Central, North and East Dallas residents.   If you accept your arguments, then two of the three arguments, capacity and piloting would automatically negate any purpose for keeping Love Field in operations as Love Field possesses neither of these attributes. In fact, those attributes were among the key reasons for building a new airport.  The third argument about pricing was not provable at the time and may not be proven today even when the Wright Amendment finally expires.

A regional airport in Western Tarrant County would serve a proven and fast growing population.  A population who today must still travel a greater distance to an airport than residents living in Dallas County.  An idea for additional regional airports for the regions are also being considered and planned for in the future in places like Collin County (McKinney Airport) to serve the fast growing and large population centers of Frisco, Allen, McKinney and Sherman..  

The argument for regional air service for a metropolitan population of 6.5 million and for a region that covers 11 counties is more about convenience than it is about piloting or airport capacity.  DFW was built as the single airport for the region based on a willingness on everyone's part to keep DFW Airport the sole air service locale.  That willingness changed as did the airline business, with Southwest, Love Field and Dallas being the change agents.  The fact that there is enormous untapped capacity at DFW is not Fort Worth's doing. There has always been room for Southwest Airlines.

 

Strategically, I  favor Carswell NAS/JRB, and not Alliance Airport,  as the optimum location for a Western Tarrant County Regional Airport. Carswwell is practically ready to go. The runway is already intact; all that is needed is a terminal and related infrastructure.  I do not see that Carswell would “gum up” the air space anymore than Love Field does already; and in fact, Love Field and DFW have managed to share airspace that is much tighter than a potential airspace between DFW and Carswell.

Finally, the idea that rail service to airports, is to my understanding, a work in progress with little to show for it nationally.  A city needs a mature transit system (Chicago, New York, Boston, Washington) to even began to think of smooth and efficient rail to airport links.  The metroplex is no where near to having a transit system that canl serve the entire region and provide smooth connections to DFW from places like White Settlement, Weatherford, Cleburne, and Southwest Fort Worth.  Don't even mention DART!

It thrills me that finally, the Commissioner Court of Tarrant County is thinking about a regional airport for the western half of the metroplex.  The regional airport project is very doable and could be up and running to serve air travellers in Fort Worth, Parker County and Johnson County decades before a satisfactory and very costly rail system could be up and running.

 

Thanks Keller Pirate for the update.

 

Fort Worth over everyone.
 



#95 Keller Pirate

Keller Pirate

    Elite Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Keller

Posted 20 February 2014 - 08:09 PM

In response to the posts above, I am certain the commissioner was talking airport with commercial flights.  However, it was an off the cuff remark while they were showing the population growth charts through 2050.  I think he was talking about the need/desire for a third airport when the next 3 or 4 million people arrive here.  On further reflection, I agree with Volare and hannerhan that we don't need the third airport anytime soon.  Also, as I said, I didn't have the feeling he was talking about Alliance but, if you go Northwest of Alliance you are out of Tarrant County.  Some entity building another airport for commercial passengers seems very risky to me.  There would be no point in building an airport from scratch until you had a firm commitment from at least one carrier.  Going into the future it will be so expensive to build an airport I don't see how a airport could pay for itself with one carrier.  

 

I think rename is right that Alliance isn't the best choice for a third airport geographically because it is close to DFW and not really that handy for folks down South.  If some carrier did decide to offer service on the west side of the metroplex I think it will be at an existing facility.  Either Alliance, Meacham or Carswell.  Personally, I probably live pretty close to the middle between DFW and Alliance, but now that the highway work is done on the North entrance to DFW I can get there quicker than I can get to Alliance.  When 2050 rolls around I don't expect to be here. B)



#96 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 05 March 2014 - 12:46 PM

....DFW really is unmatched throughout the US and has plenty of capacity still available at the terminal facilities.

 

 

Amen to that.  DFW Airport is one of the best things to ever happen to Fort Worth and it seems to me that the more Fort Worth can take advantage of it, the better.  DFW is on a roll right now...I think Fort Worth would be way better off figuring out how to get mass transit to DFW than screwing with another regional airport....DFW is nowhere near capacity in terms of traffic, so there is no need to gum up the works with another airport.

 

What if Virgin Airlines was announcing new service from a Fort Worth airport?

 

http://www.myfoxdfw....llas-love-field

 

At the risk of sounding harsh, I need now to hear from the DFW+Love Field proponents that further the case for why Fort Worth is not deserving of a regional airport. As someone wrote in an earlier post: "What is fair for Fort Worth?"



#97 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,180 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 05 March 2014 - 08:29 PM

If Virgin respected the market share of the western half of the metroplex, they wouldn't be moving from DFW to Dallas. Clearly they don't, so why do you think they would move to a Fort Worth airport if one existed?



#98 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 05 March 2014 - 10:58 PM

If Virgin respected the market share of the western half of the metroplex, they wouldn't be moving from DFW to Dallas. Clearly they don't, so why do you think they would move to a Fort Worth airport if one existed?

 

Clearly Virgin Airlines does not respect statements such as this one - "DFW really is unmatched throughout the US and has plenty of capacity still available at the terminal facilities". 

 

I see it not as a knock on the western half of the metroplex but as a business decision by VA to be nearer to Downtown Dallas and the uptown neighborhoods. 

 

It is impossible to disprove your negative when Fort Worth does not now have an existing commercial airport in operation close in to Downtown Fort Worth.  But if we are to accept VA reasons for relocating their service to Love Field from DFW, we could reasonably assume that VA or some future carrier would apply the same matrix towards Fort Worth as it did towards Dallas and make service available directly to and from Fort Worth to capture a strong Fort Worth CBD and prosperous western Tarrant/Parker/Johnson County region. Clearly the demographics are in place.  In fact, there has been efforts to do so, but in the past gone era of Fortress AA, it was met with fierce resistance.  One can argue that that it is evidence like these efforts that I believe would support my argument and weakens yours.

 

Build it and they will come!



#99 Volare

Volare

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,180 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oakhurst, Fort Worth, TX
  • Interests:running, cycling, geocaching, photography, gardening, hunting, fishing...

Posted 06 March 2014 - 04:14 AM

Here's a question for you. Since DFW was built nearly 40 years ago, what other new commerical airports have been built in the entire United States?

 

Realize that with the destinations VA has announced that they are intending to poach high-yield Dallas business travellers from AA heading to major US destinations- LA, Chicago, etc. Hardly a "regional airport" style usage. Also realize that in it's entire existence that VA has yet to turn a profit. Good thing DFW spent millions to try and attract VA, eh? Your toll dollars at work I suppose...



#100 Fort Worthology

Fort Worthology

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,032 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A place

Posted 06 March 2014 - 08:51 AM

Actually, to be fair, Virgin America has posted two consecutive quarterly profits, I believe.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users