male to female sex change
large black cock
schoolboy spanking
zoo sex free
amateur double blow job
vintage nipples
old cfnm
hot brunette squirting
guy jizz
anal maids
hustler lingerie
indian girls sex
native american indian porn
hard to concentrate
salma hayek nude
flexible vinyl indoor moulding
lohan nude blog
femdom movie portal
delta shower supreme
free hentai game
Big Boob Party-4 CD-1
internal creampie eating
hardcore videos
south korean tae kwon do schools
extreme days soundtrack
bbw cameltoe
cfnm mpeg
sexy lesbians kissing
erotic search engines
how to anal sex
vaginal skin tags
creampie housewives
teen chat avenue
squirting dyke bukkake
tiny titty
jizz swallow
lolitas blog
sonny new found glory mp3
gloryhole cum
camel toe panty pic
fist fucking whores
shaved asian teen
free galleries porn
pusssy licking
latex fucked
kick in the head
bike sex toy
squrting pussy
sexy oriental bathing
mil hun
hard buff hunks
sexy adult games
vagina pump
pantyhose cock
free spanking live clips
tits wmv
old man fucks teen
close up preteen pics
hott blondes
free videos granny whores
forced gay blowjobs
hidden camera blowjob
wife swinging
kelly handjob
lesbian licking clits
flexible hairy pussy archives
indian sex stories
gay erotic drawings
male masturbation stories getting caught
spanking teenage boys
glory hole clips
Triple Stacked-13 CD-1
cheerleader porn lesbian
amateur swap xxx
adult thumbnail post
african gay male
retro lesbian sex
hot hunks in the shower
pics of teens in thongs
lacey duvalle pregnant
nude japanese schoolgirls
bi and singles travel
oral whores
free tight pussy
virtual child porn
teen hitchikers
chubby girls having sex
free male celebrity sex tapes
abduction and rape stories
what will they do bridal shower theme
jizz on her glasses
hypnosis training school institute hypnotherapy
cock shaving
massive female bukkake
tranny babes
mom rapes son
incest post
anorexic girls
free webcams adult chat line
camcorder xxx
bondage female
korean underground teens free nude pictures
sandra teen micro bikini
vintage fuck
porn toon
mature fucking young
Oversized Boobies-2 CD-1
pantyhose granny
Anal Recruiters CD-2
deep enough to dream mp3
Discovering The Girl Next Door-3
naked mom pics
jeanna fine porn star
petite porn stars
mom sucks sons cock
chloroform bondage
destin log
dirty foot fetish cum shots
sie sieht mich nicht
sex and candy
redhead maature porn galleries
olsen twins nude fakes
milf group sex
coed nude track meet galleries
glove fetish
sex strangulation clips
horse fuck girl
enormous penis gallery
jizz on me
free filipina video porn
milf big boobs
ebony spankings
horny girls in nylon
sexing chicks
eraser nipples
serena williams naked
slutty chicks
milfs in thongs
kid thong underwear
really funny shit
women in crotchless panties
free petite nude
husband slave wife domination stories
wet stockings nylons fully clothed pissinng
used toy haulers
sex with the maid
cfnm handjob movie galleries
bukkake woman
large cap wigs
swallow it bitch
ebony lick ffm
petite fisting
fuck bleeding cunt
dp anal
Work That MILF CD-2
fist and squirt vids
jamaican pussy
sex showers
bottle fuck
navicular foot vascular supply images

stripping party
jennifer aniston upskirt
nude housewifes
elvis presley burning love
mature wifes
hidden teen cams
blond ass
mr. big dicks hot chicks
male teen models
paris hilten sex tape
teen hitchikers
japanese secretary orgasm
teen topanga username and password
gay mature fuck
big tit lesbians
colorado whole life insurance
ass eating
sexy costumes and french maid
horny military wives
little kid porn
disciplinary wives club
Work That MILF CD-2
cum swallow stories
bree olsen strip
extreme creampies
teen first anal
playboy cartoon
big mouth fuls
alsscan password
personal fitness trainer jobs tampa florida

The panhandle airport’s hired ghost-writers have taken to personal slurs on their critics.  In quick-response letters drafted for the airport chairman, we see politicians, government agencies, and Chamber of Commerce publicists as deliberative and wise, while editorial boards with decades of experience covering boondoggles suddenly “know nothing” and the opinion of a popular Floridian who happens to teach writing is “parrotting”, her passionate opinion a “work of fiction”.

The boosters of this airport have spent over $40 Million in state and federal grants to make their case.  That’s a large megaphone to shout over, but I’ll try:

In 2000, this project was estimated to cost $115 Million LESS than renovating the present airport, and was confidently predicted to increase air service and lower air fares.  Equally confident traffic forecasts showed 435,000 passengers using the present airport by 2005.  On the down side, the present airport had insurmountable safety deficiencies. Lobbyists threatened rampant destructive development in the wetlands if environmentalists even requested FAA to do an Environmental Impact Statement.

Now the 2007 facts:  Buried deep in those FAA studies, the real cost of the new airport is $331 Million and the cost to renovate the existing is $72 Million for upgrading the safety areas, for a net COST of $259 Million and a $374 Million SWING from savings to costs!  Even more galling, the $40 Million already sunk in consultant studies (largely unusable designs and to get permits for the soggy “free land”) negates all future benefits, including land sales and other non-aviation benefits.  The passenger traffic has DECLINED from 357,000 to 354,000 since 2000, meaning that future growth must now accelerate even more to arrive at the rosy future predicted in 2000.  The daily airline departures have DECLINED from 22 per day to 12 or 13, thus vacating enough airspace for decades of airline growth.  This flattening of growth makes the debt financing of the new airport a bailout risk for the Florida treasury.  In a strange defense of how small the new airport is, the chairman says it will have only seven “active” gates - in fact it will have only THREE active gates and four spares.   Let’s not even go into the secular collapse of the real estate economy and the retrenchment of legacy airlines so vital to small markets.

Some reasoned opinion added to these facts:

FAA completed the EIS and the Corps of Engineers cooperated with both the EIS and the dredge/fill permit.  The EIS has been challenged because, in order to favor the new airport, FAA conflated modest community impacts with huge impacts to functioning wetlands.   The Florida Department of Environmental Protection declares there is a “net environmental benefit” to converting both a vast remote wetland to an airport and a sleepy close-in airport to an intense mixed-use condo-town.  This is an insult to intelligence.

The airport board chairman describes the present airport: “The Panama City airport does not meet federal safety and design standards, and the existing site is constrained by residential on three sides and water on the fourth.”  Sounds ominous, but this description fits almost every existing airport! Do the names LaGuardia, Boston, Midway, Reagan-National, (and 240 more!) sound familiar?  The arcane world of “FAA standards” is a hall of mirrors that FAA rearranges to reflect its current position on many matters, and the national aviation system will collapse if the “panhandle standard” of “plow this one under and build a new one” is applied widely.  If the funding were not distorted by Florida’s generosity, this project would be far down FAA’s list.

The new airport has resoundingly failed to quantify its value in such a small market, as shown by its withdrawn benefit-cost analysis.

This plan is still premature (although originally to be completed in 2006!), it was overfunded by Jeb Bush and the legislature (see remarks on “sunk costs” above), and IT IS NOT THE BEST AVIATION PLAN FOR THE REGION.

Much of the cost of the new airport is duplicating the present airport on a new site that is oversized, environmentally disastrous, probably not in the best location to collect regional traffic, and offers no aviation growth in terms of more (versus longer) runways or community proximity.  Even if the chosen location must be used, the impacts could be reduced by simply following a good example: the Southwest Florida Regional
Airport in Ft. Myers.  By retaining its community airport and developing a one-long-runway airline facility, Ft. Myers avoided this expensive duplication and now has two complementary airports that are both valuable regional assets.  Of course, Ft. Myers demonstrated robust growth BEFORE building a regional airport.

Consultant Bechtel judged that only one Bay County airport could be sustained, and it would be located to assist development as much as aviation (Not surprisingly, this plan also maximized consulting opportunities.)  The judgment was obviously false because the escalating cost has been covered by parachuting in more new Florida grant money than the expected proceeds of selling the present site.  The existing community airport is not actually replaced, and the new airport enhances only remote future communities while siphoning 93% of its passengers from the existing service area. The remaining aviation needs of the existing area are relegated to either grass fields or expensive new venues at the remote airport.

Viable alternatives exist in every debate and the money-driven narrative deserves skepticism.  At a time when Florida government is asking for budget sacrifices, politicians have given this airport boondoggle a free pass.  There is still time for better judgement.

Meanwhile general aviation is healthy and its expansion is being hobbled to influence support for a replacement airport far from our community.   If this project goes forward, Panama City will be the only sizable city in Florida without a paved community airport, having plowed it under for less money than it will take to grade, fill and destroy the wetlands and feeder creeks that sustain West Bay, not to mention the impact of redevelopment at the existing site.

Why would pilots, principal users of the airport, oppose relocation and expansion?   Because the airport cannot literally be relocated - the reality is the existing airport is being destroyed unnecessarily and prematurely, in pursuit of a project that is not worth its cost in money or environmental damage.  Most of the cost of a new airport is to duplicate the present facilities at a wetland location to serve communities that don’t exist.   These communities should develop on their own merit and provide an airport, preferably away from the bay, when they can justify it.  If that airport proves to be superior, it will attract traffic and the region will have two civil airports, just as Okaloosa/Eglin has three.  In fact, pilots proposed a two-airport plan that could be developed in orderly phases, but the consultants could not see beyond their destructive plan.

The analysis by FAA was not to endorse the economic potential of the new airport or condemn the safety of the existing airport - it merely had to meet the letter of the law requiring a federal action to disclose and avoid or mitigate its consequences.   Local people including NRDC members and pilots agree that the analysis does not meet the letter of the law, and we requested NRDC to help us challenge it.   For whatever reason, “prominent” local environmentalists have decided to endorse the project.   It is very easy to endorse because the advocates have spent over $40 Million in tax money, supplemented by untold special interest money managed by Dr. Wright, papering the supporting file and trumpeting the disputed results.   A detailed reading of the entire administrative record, including comments and responses, leaves us unconvinced - everybody should read the entire record, not just the final documents.

When FAA finally evaluated the aviation benefits, it found that the new airport did not qualify for the type of FAA funding being requested, and FAA has approved less money and lower quality financial assurances than the airport applied for.   This shifts more of the cost to the taxpayers and ultimately to airport users (passengers, services and pilots) who will pay year-2010-and-beyond rates and charges while still flying year-2000 air service and commuting millions of miles for the privilege.  There has been no accountability for the bad forecasts and cost estimates, largely due to poor supervision.  Bechtel was excused from its sweetheart contract, leaving a mess for the airport board to untangle.  The result is a speculative finance plan that depends on the Florida treasury to bail out the airport if necessary.  Before that, the project will be reduced to one runway and general aviation facilities outsourced or deferred - topics already being discussed by the airport board.

Pilots must be rational, competent - and considering the personal risk and cost involved - prudent in actions and finance.  The airport board and the public agencies have shown far too little of these traits to gain our confidence and support.  Paid shills and boosters need not even try.

FAA is getting a sweet financial deal:   by allowing the airport board to sacrifice the community airport and the Florida taxpayer to assume the construction overrun and market risk of the new airport, FAA avoids any additional cost for duplicating traffic control and navigation aids, and avoids funding one extra dime from its Airport Improvement Fund.  

Incidentally, FAA has discredited the claim that improving the present airport would cost over $150 Million - the airport’s consultants have been proven 100% wrong again ($72 Million vs. $150 Million), but they continue to pocket millions in fees.

February’s report is due March 27 - it will depend on Spring Break traffic…

I am not an opponent of a new airport ever, my career was in airports, but I have been a critic of this plan. The consultants have played this airport board like a violin, billing almost $40Million so far, mostly to “entitle” the “free land”, and there is still a $6 Milliion mitigation bill to pay. Most of us can’t afford that kind of free land. Lately, FDOT has been buying the free land directly by accepting it as 50/50 matching “when acquired by the airport” for FDOT cash - thats about $8 Million so far.

The people who planned this decided in 1999 where it would go, and studies since then have apparently been to paper over that decision. Who was that? “Not you, not me, must have been that man behind the tree…” I have seen this rodeo about 35 times around the country and been on the other side of the table. It may very well be a “done deal” but it is not pretty when I look closely, and all I am interested in is that the taxpayers know what they are getting.

To get back to the subject, benefit-cost is to determine the INCREMENTAL benefits vs the INCREMENTAL cost, and a small airport has surprising capabilities that must be recognized before claiming additional benefits. The small airport at Ft Myers was carrying traffic in 1982 that exceeds the forecast here for 2030, before the new airport there (it was also growing over 20% per year instead of standing still). The point of the 106-passenger comparison is: In 30 years, we get one more 737 per day “there” than we do “here” and we pay (this months estimate) $331 Million NOW - is it worth it? For passengers, clearly no. How about charters? FAA says it takes 250 visits a year (5 per week) to build a runway for a particular airplane not otherwise served. Voila! Airport proposes 5 per week from UK - total fiction and FAA rejected it, limits fed funding to 6800 ft. Optimists don’t like these numbers, but FAA only misses operation forecasts by 3% and passenger by 9% - they allowed these guys 13% more than FAA-TAF.

Jobs? out of my field (and FAA’s). I don’t know but I think $300 to $500 million invested in FSU-PC would be more likely to pay off. The jobs estimate declined from 20,000 in 1999 to 4,000+ when required to be recorded testimony. That was over 23 years or 175+ per year, mostly warehousing and service.

Real estate? You bet, after all it is a LAND DEAL - sale/redev of of airport, appreciation of remote land because we have transferred our air traffic there (and grown it to 7 percent differential in 30 years). Those 7 percent are not grounded without new-PFN, after all they are only siphoned from Okaloosa/Eglin IF THE AIRLINES PRICE IT LOW ENOUGH. If trends continue, Okaloosa will have the price advantage and many of those who drive 25 miles to West Bay will just keep driving 50 more.

These are some of the tradeoffs involved. It is one of those grand visions that nobody enjoys questioning - remember when the incinerator was going to be profitable? Dozens of paid advocates said so, and then went home as Bechtel just did, after tucking $30 Million or so in the purse. There is a much more conservative way to go about this, but the sunk cost has grown so big it is hard to contemplate abandoning it.

I wrote the op-ed that started the discussion on the Feb 1 show, and I appreciate the response.  Listeners should understand that I am (or was) an airport professional and I have no axe to grind about growth or economic development.  That said, the claims about stimulation expected from moving this modest airport with declining traffic are almost hysterical.  FAA is funded to enhance and operate the national aviation system, not to build speculative infrastructure that may improve local prospects.  Can you imagine how far the Aviation Trust Fund will go if it becomes a “honeypot” for every Chamber of Commerce in the country?

Building a new airport for Northwest Florida is much more an aspiration of local and state interests than a need of the national aviation system.   It will no longer be the Panama City airport - THAT airport will be plowed under for less money than it takes to grade the new site  (and that’s another story - we could have two airports if this is handled right).  FAA’s benefit-cost test is a hurdle the airport must clear to obtain federal funds that are reserved for adding capacity (more flights, not runway length) - one of those “silly rules” in place to ensure the trust fund has resources to address the choke-points of the national system, and to protect the trust fund from abuse.

FAA must use a conservative method to screen hype from documented prospects.  I have always approached big choices with this philosophy: “The facts are friendly.”  It is also helpful if the facts are in writing - I think you will agree if you have ever signed a contract.  The consultants on a big project are always torn between dealing in facts and saying what their client wants to hear.  National aviation consultants also have to preserve their credibility with FAA because their future business depends on credibility.  Thus, the case they develop to claim huge grants is often much different from what local boosters believe or yearn for. Consultants will spin the facts as much as possible for their client but they cannot just fabricate a case.

My article was a commentary on whether the study made its case for certain federal funds - NOT on the merit of the local aspirations.  It is a STONE FACT that this project will cost hundreds of millions and destroy significant environmental resources UP FRONT, and an interesting SPECULATION that it will improve local prospects.  Its a shame that it took six years and $40 Million to narrow the discussion from overblown political ads about “safety” and “jobs” to whether this project adds enough aviation value to offset its considerable cost.

“America is at an awkward stage. Its too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the bastards.”-Clair Wolfe