PHL expansion approved

[Travelpro72]

Any improvement to the PHL airport is welcome regardless of how long it takes. It's much needed and long overdue. I hope the operating costs don't become all that expensive. We wouldn't want to see US run from PHL.

 

[BuffaloJoe]

Why not relocate UPS to ILG, Willow Grove, RDG, ABE? Sure Philly wants to keep tax base, but just throwing out my opinion.

 

[FM2436]

Why not relocate UPS to ILG, Willow Grove, RDG, ABE? Sure Philly wants to keep tax base, but just throwing out my opinion.

After reading the article I'd wonder if PHL officials are hoping and praying that FAA's Airport Improvement Program (AIP) will finance the majority of the cost of the proposed airfield expansion. The FAA's AIP is under attack by many in US Congress as wasteful spending (even though the revenues that fund AIP are collected through user fees). Attempts by the new majority of Republicians in the US House include the elimination of all AIP discreationary spending (about 1/2 of AIP) and eliminating all AIP funding to large (PHL) and medium hub airports.

In my opinion the relocation of UPS and the construction of the proposed parallel RWY 9R-27L (minimum of 4'200 separation from 9L-27R) is critical toward permitting 2 aircraft simultaneous ILS approaches during poor weather conditions. Terminal improvements can wait until the latter part of the 13-year plan.

"Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has offered an amendment to pending tax legislation that would make large and medium hub airports ineligible to receive AIP grants except to "cover costs incurred in terminating ongoing projects." The Coburn amendment would also rescind any unobligated funds for previous AIP grants to large and medium hubs."

http://www.aaae.org/federal_affairs/airport_legislative_alliance/airport_alerts/viewalert.cfm?alert_id=E5E55308-A9BE-688D-EF83612A2156D6DC&year=2010

 

[PBI2FLL]

In my opinion the relocation of UPS and the construction of the proposed parallel RWY 9R-27L (minimum of 4'200 separation from 9L-27R) is critical toward permitting 2 aircraft simultaneous ILS approaches during poor weather conditions. Terminal improvements can wait until the latter part of the 13-year plan.

ABSOLUTELY! That should be priority #1 !!!

 

[PHL]

Why not relocate UPS to ILG, Willow Grove, RDG, ABE? Sure Philly wants to keep tax base, but just throwing out my opinion.

Philly doesn't get the wage tax base from the UPS facility. It's on the Delaware county side of the field, and will continue to be after the move. Moving it to one of those other sites would involve quite a few more logistical changes in their entire East coast ground operation that's tightly integrated with the hub at PHL.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Why not relocate UPS to ILG, Willow Grove, RDG, ABE? Sure Philly wants to keep tax base, but just throwing out my opinion.

I'm certain the folks living in those airport environs will be first in line to support such a move. Why wouldn't they want that increase in jet noise? They get the benefit of having their eardrums shattered on a regular basis, without the hassle of having passenger air service at their doorstep!

Sign me up!

 

[Twicebaked]

Exactly. The first phases will seem slow. The property in Essington will have to be purchased before the new UPS facility can be built. The UPS facility must be completed and operating before the current UPS buildings can be razed. Then the new runway can be started. It could be a few years just for that.

There was a map out sometime back.. Anybody know where it is? I read an artical that stated that 70 or 73 homes in Essington had to be purchased??? I assume they would be on the other side of the rail road tracks???? It would be interesting to see what is going away....

 

[Travelpro72]

All of Essington. LOL

 

[RowUnderDCA]

I suppose PHL will have to remove the fuel port near Fort Mifflin. Is that a port for the delivery of Jet Fuel, only, or other feuls as well?

Also, are those FBO hangars and a (the) control tower on Hog Island Road?

And then of course, there's the shipyard.

 

[JayBrian]

I suppose PHL will have to remove the fuel port near Fort Mifflin. Is that a port for the delivery of Jet Fuel, only, or other feuls as well?

Also, are those FBO hangars and a (the) control tower on Hog Island Road?

And then of course, there's the shipyard.

There is an old abandoned runway on the shipyard/naval base, about 5000 feet long. Maybe SWA could just move there and operate their own airport and reduce the congestion at PHL.

 

[songbirdstew]

Union labor, what do you expect? Will probably cost 4X as much as it should also.

and then landing fees will skyrocket in PHL and what they were paying in PIT won't look so bad.....................

 

[FM2436]

After reading the article I'd wonder if PHL officials are hoping and praying that FAA's Airport Improvement Program (AIP) will finance the majority of the cost of the proposed airfield expansion. The FAA's AIP is under attack by many in US Congress as wasteful spending (even though the revenues that fund AIP are collected through user fees). Attempts by the new majority of Republicians in the US House include the elimination of all AIP discreationary spending (about 1/2 of AIP) and eliminating all AIP funding to large (PHL) and medium hub airports.

In my opinion the relocation of UPS and the construction of the proposed parallel RWY 9R-27L (minimum of 4'200 separation from 9L-27R) is critical toward permitting 2 aircraft simultaneous ILS approaches during poor weather conditions. Terminal improvements can wait until the latter part of the 13-year plan.

"Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has offered an amendment to pending tax legislation that would make large and medium hub airports ineligible to receive AIP grants except to "cover costs incurred in terminating ongoing projects." The Coburn amendment would also rescind any unobligated funds for previous AIP grants to large and medium hubs."

http://www.aaae.org/federal_affairs/airport_legislative_alliance/airport_alerts/viewalert.cfm?alert_id=E5E55308-A9BE-688D-EF83612A2156D6DC&year=2010

The Obama Administration this morning unveiled its FY 2012 budget request, including a proposed $1.1 billion reduction in AIP funding to $2.4 billion and the elimination of "guaranteed" AIP funding for large and medium hub airports. The Administration justifies the cut by also asking - in vague terms - for an increase in the PFC cap for "larger airports." According to budget documents "The Budget would eliminate Federal grants and allow larger airports to increase non-Federal passenger facility charges, creating for them an opportunity and flexibility to generate their own revenue as they see fit."

If PHL is considering the FAA AIP to pick most of the tab for this PHL expansion, they better hope and pray President Obama's budget proposal to eliminate large and medium hubs from AIP funding is defeated.

 

[BoeingBoy]

The Obama Administration this morning unveiled its FY 2012 budget request, including a proposed $1.1 billion reduction in AIP funding to $2.4 billion and the elimination of "guaranteed" AIP funding for large and medium hub airports. The Administration justifies the cut by also asking - in vague terms - for an increase in the PFC cap for "larger airports." According to budget documents "The Budget would eliminate Federal grants and allow larger airports to increase non-Federal passenger facility charges, creating for them an opportunity and flexibility to generate their own revenue as they see fit."

If PHL is considering the FAA AIP to pick most of the tab for this PHL expansion, they better hope and pray President Obama's budget proposal to eliminate large and medium hubs from AIP funding is defeated.

I'm too lazy to dig up the number of enplaned passengers per year at PHL but it may be something of a trade-off. PFC's are proposed to go from the current $4.50 max to as much as $7 max. Of course, the ATA is opposed to the PFC increase as well as the proposed security fee increase (but has no problem with the airlines raising their fares/fees).

There are currently FAA budget bills in both houses of Congress that keep the PFC at $4.50. Congressional pressure is toward keeping the funding for AIP also.

Jim