WMBB - Airport Q&A: Wednesday, Thursday, Friday
I was out of town, so missed the video, but looked at the web transcripts. It appears the issues were proximity, jobs, and benefits.
Proximity: First the facts: the new Bay county airport will be the furthest airport from its host community in Florida. Despite the hype about "regional" traffic, the new airport is a simple relocation with no significant new capabilities - a 2000 foot runway extension for $100,000 per foot. Panama City/Bay County will be just another client, not the focus of air service. Citizens should recognize that this is a State of Florida airport district, not a local board.
The boosters can never stop at the facts - there is always an over-the-top claim too. This time we are told that passengers will drive from Tallahassee to Ebro (yes, THAT Tallahassee: state capital, major university, low-fare airline, two interstate highways...). You don't have to be an expert to doubt this claim...
Jobs: This is where the debate should be centered, since the aviation benefits are far less than the cost. Boosters say a new airport "creates opportunities". Compared to what? The "target industies" of our economic office are automobile parts manufacturing and aviation/aerospace industry. Assuming the automobile parts are destined for factories in Alabama and Georgia, no case has been made for the advantage of a NW Florida location far from interstates. If the idea is to attract an auto plant, we are building the wrong type of airport. Aerospace is problematic because it is strongly cyclical and the cycle is at its lowest point since 1953. There is enormous unused capacity in aerospace facilities all over the country - new facilities are at a competitive disadvantage due to cost. The overhaul/maintenance sector, specifically heavy maintenance on the regional jet/large bizjet is a possibility, but again competition is heavy: several major maitenance facilities have been closed in the airline retrenchment. Engine and component maintenance is a non-starter because a new facility cannot compete with the existing huge technology centers that can absorb much more work at marginal cost.
Benefits: For the average local citizen: very few for many years. For a few lobbyists, insiders, connected consultants, and contractors: it's raining money! $250 Million in the next few years, then a pause to "discover" the new airport would be more successful if it was just bigger, then another cycle of $Milllions, and perhaps by then the region will need more airport - say about 2030...
There has been a huge reversal of cause and effect here: when we have a larger and more robust economy, an airport will follow. A modest relocation of an existing airport will not cause a more robust economy.
The local economy's real future lies in real estate development, associated services, and health care. We should direct government resources toward managing those sectors for responsible growth and profitability, public benefit and private quality of life. Grotesquely front-loaded "infrastructure" is political pork, not rational development. Orderly planning and buying or setting aside land for an airport makes sense; stuffing $250 Million into it now does not.
9:59:24 AM 
|
