Hey, I understand that some people don’t like airports. Yes, airplanes can be noisy, if nothing else. I get the impression lee falls into that category and she’s certainly entitled to her position. However, just because some people don’t like airports does not mean we should discard them lightly.
Heck, I don’t like golf courses - they’re ecological nightmares, use more chemicals than a Monsanto test plot, and golf has long been a game of the rich and elite - but I recognize that this feeling is not universal and put up with their existance.
If there is sufficient public support to keep a city ammenity or feature - whether it’s an airport or a golf course - then the mayor should not be able to overturn the rule of the people. Unless you support rule by dictatorship.
Was Meigs a “jewel of the lakefront”? Well, an industrial diamond, perhaps. Not something everyone would consider pretty, but certainly with a true usefulness.
Yes, I have a bias - I’m a pilot. On the other hand, I’ve never flown at Meigs myself, even when I lived in the city. In part because of the landings fees - prior to the city instituting them Meigs got a LOT more traffic. As I’ve said - MY airports and city will likely benefit from increased business.
To MY mind it’s not just the airport itself but a couple of other points:
Daley is acting like someone doing something wrong. On a couple points, he IS doing something wrong. Yes, he has a legal right to close the airport. He does NOT have a right to do so without notifying the FAA (yes, lee the FAA is angry but their first priority was getting the stranded pilots out of the city. If you haven’t heard much it might be because you aren’t tied into the aviation community. The mainstream media is notoriously bad at aviation reporting on any level.) He does NOT have a right to deprieve someone either of their property or the use of that property without due process - which is exactly what happened to 16 stranded pilots this week. While it is not illegal to anger people, it is not always a wise idea for a politician to do so. Daley has enraged about 700,000 pilots in the United States, plus some from abroad. That’s just the pilots. We do have some other folks who wanted to keep the airfield, too.
This is a question of whether or not we have general aviation in this country. That’s actually a valid question to ask - why have GA? I mean, there ARE countries where civilians are not permitted to fly. Countries like Iraq, Myamar, Pakistan, the pre-breakup Soviet Union…
I wonder why the actions of 19 people (and maybe fewer - not all of them may have been aware of the true plan) should restrict the freedom of movement for 700,000 US citizens? True, flying is not constitutionally guaranteed - neither is driving your car, for that matter. A pilot - any pilot - must put considerable time and effort into earning a privilege to fly. Understandably, we get upset at the idea that someone might take our hard-earned privilege away from us. Particularly when we haven’t done anything wrong.
Don’t care about pilots and flying? Well, consider that it would set a precedent that may haunt you down the line.
As I said - this does NOTHING to prevent air traffic in close proximity to the Loop area. NOTHING. The TFR is a JOKE.
Let’s consider the person of the president… wherever he goes, he is at the center of a traveling “no fly zone” with a 30 mile radius. So… if it takes 30 miles to protect one human being… how does a TFR maybe 3 miles in its longest dimension protect a city? It doesn’t.
If a TFR is less than 30 miles in radius it’s there for political grandstanding, not safety or security reasons
If we instituted a TFR 30 miles in radius centered on the Loop you would close the 14 airports I already mentioned. But that only protects the Loop. Now, imagine a TFR that extends 30 miles out from the border of Chicago… that would be the minimum required for true “protection” of any sort. You know, I just don’t feel like getting the map out again, it would be just too depressing. It would be more than another 14, though, because once you get outside the city and Cook county the number of airports goes up. The TFR would extend into not only Indiana but Wisconsin as well.
OK… that’s a LOT of businesses that would close, with the “multiplier effect” fall out because those people now unemployed would no longer frequent nearby restaurants, stores, or buy other services. At least one professional flight school - one that trains future airline pilots - would be forced to close.
Do that with enough cities you will effectively kill general aviation. That industry directly employs over 1 million people. It’s also where new pilots come from for the airlines. (Only 40% of current airline pilots are former military, and most of those will retire within 10 years). Now… when the pilot shortage comes home to roost in 10-15 years and the airlines don’t have the pilots to fly you to Aruba… when Fed Ex can’t get your package delivered overnight because they have empty cockpits… what will you do then?
It’s not JUST about privilege (although I’m sure the folks who make their living sell things to the rich would tell you that their jobs are important to them) or about big business (although there are entire industries employing millions of people who cater to big business who wuld like to keep their jobs) but also about hauling your holiday presents to your friends and relatives, performing search and rescue missions, fighting forest fires, flying trauma patients to hospitals and organs to transplant patients. It’s about flying emergency supplies into disaster areas. So… if you NEVER send packages overnight or 2nd day delivery, if you NEVER will get lost in the wilderness, if you don’t care if people die in wildfires, if you will NEVER need to be choppered away from a bad freeway accident, NEVER need an organ transplant, and will NEVER be in an area affected by hurricain, tornado, earthquake or other natural disaster… then OK, you’ll never use general aviation.
And, quite frankly, why shouldn’t a law abiding citizen be able to fly?. Do we regulate how much someone could spend on a home, or an SUV, or a boat? Do we shake our fingers at people and say “No - you can’t SCUBA - that’s annoying and anyhow, only rich farts do that” You don’t need to be rich to fly. When I started lessons I was earning $25,000 a year. I make a little more than that now, but it’s still under 50k. And I can afford to fly about 3 weekends out of 4. I’m no CEO, I’m not rich (doing pretty good, yes, but not rich…) - so what? As long as I follow the rules why shouldn’t I be able to pursue happiness in the sky?
Is this really the country where a couple of bicycle repairmen from Ohio learned to keep a heavier than air machine off the ground?