Several on the List have mentioned the Constitution lately. One principle of that document is local control, and that applies to location and use of airports as well as other things. Now I have little sympathy for people who move near a large commercial airport (O'Hare, say) and complain about the noise. But I do have sympathy for folks -- and institutions, like schools -- that were there before jets. I do think that people living near Everett would have a valid complaint if all of a sudden that became a commercial airport. Yes, local control is not an absolute, and it is states that are sovereign, not counties, but I do not think that people in Chicago or LA should dictate what happens in Everett. I do not know the exact details of LAX, BUR (Burbank), SNA (Orange County?), but I have a proposal. If the social costs of greater traffic at these airports are unacceptable, raise the landing fees, etc. until the demand falls to the level these communities believe is socially acceptable. Yes, the passengers will end up paying these, but if they want the convenience of flying into these airports, they should. I also have no sympathy for those who want to limit flights at BUR (for example), but want to be able to fly in & out of BUR whenever they want. john kurtzke Fan of the Constitution, including the Preamble On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Jon Wright wrote: > "Do-gooders"? You give them too much credit. > > I'd label them NIMBYs or Luddites at best. And I can definitely think up > many more choice things to label them that I won't post. > > The whole aviation situation in the LA area is ludicrous. Three perfectly > good airports--BUR, LGB, and SNA--that have a variety of artificial caps on > activity and LAX which is supposedly going to cost multi-billions of dollars > so it can increase its capacity. > > Seattle has a similar situation. There is a perfectly good airport in > Everett (where Boeing's widebody plant is). Problem is, Snohomish County > (the operator) has rolled over and pledged that there will never be > commercial flights out of Paine Field. It has a great location relative to > the existing airport--SEA is south of Seattle and PAE is north of Seattle. > It would be perfect for some Alaska, Horizon, or Southwest flights down the > coast and perhaps to Spokane or Boise. Instead, we're spending a few billion > dollars to add a third runway that, because of the geography of the airport, > still isn't far enough away from the existing runways to permit simultaneous > all-weather operations. > > Perhaps one way to portray these folks that would be especially damning > (given the current political climate) would be pro-tax. Since the existing > infrastructure can't be efficiently utilized because of these people's > bitching, lot's of money is going to have to be spent elsewhere, and chances > are, that's going to mean taxes are going to have to be raised somewhere. So > I say we brand these people with a scarlet T and talk that angle up.