Joe answers the criticism
Hi Mr. Freeman,
If there's one thing I am is sympathetic - to a fault some would say. I can't tolerate speculation and alarmist comments that raise the anxiety level of those who, for whatever reason, don't know all of the facts. If you have facts to back this up - like the new NEF contours grant Porter 200 slots - then I will happily stand corrected and you will stand justified.
I thought the number of slots Porter owns was a direct correlation to the Noise (NEF) contours that are currently being updated. Perhaps Mr. Iller or Kotyk can confirm this. If the slots were simply an administrative item, then Porter would have had them increased prior to committing to purchase so many aircraft.
You are putting several circumstantial and coincidental items together and concluding that Porter will "double" their operation within 12 months. I agree that Porter's operations lead in the direction of expansion but the extent of that expansion has always been our difference of opinion. Also, I have read of Porter intentions to expand using Ottawa and another base in Alberta.
I have always maintained that there has to be a balance uses on the waterfront. The airport needs to be restricted to an amount of flights that doesn't turn the waterfront into a dead zone in the heart of the city. I believe that Porter operating around 120 flights per day can be accommodated - any more than that and the balance is tipped too far in the wrong direction.
Mr. Freeman, I believe Community Air has an obligation to the citizens they claim to represent - an obligation to be factual, credible and reasonable. In my opinion, alarmist and fear mongering tactics don't jive with those obligations. This is why I took issue with Mr. Sparrow many years ago - because of his methods and approach.
You already have several significant and reasonable issues that are well documented and deserve attention and rectification. Don't cloud the real issues by cluttering the landscape with red herrings, speculation and alarmist language.
On a related note, I took some issue with "Very worried mom" regarding noise complaints for a similar reason. If you complain about every single event, regardless of severity and REAL impact on your lives, it would stand to reason that the LEGITIMATE complaints would be covered by the mountain of paperwork containing less than deserving items. For example, I'm talking about arrivals or departures at 11:01 or 11:02 PM, engine maintenance runs at 1:45PM etc. Sure these are annoyances but how do they compare to engine maintenance done at 3:30AM or an arrival at 11:55PM etc...
It becomes a "cry wolf" scenario where the real and deserving complaints don't get the attention they deserve and the community loses credibility for complaining about every single event without filtering the real issues from the perceived ones. Believe it or not - I'm trying to increase the odds of your issues being addressed rather than buried under clutter.
Take Care
Joe
If there's one thing I am is sympathetic - to a fault some would say. I can't tolerate speculation and alarmist comments that raise the anxiety level of those who, for whatever reason, don't know all of the facts. If you have facts to back this up - like the new NEF contours grant Porter 200 slots - then I will happily stand corrected and you will stand justified.
I thought the number of slots Porter owns was a direct correlation to the Noise (NEF) contours that are currently being updated. Perhaps Mr. Iller or Kotyk can confirm this. If the slots were simply an administrative item, then Porter would have had them increased prior to committing to purchase so many aircraft.
You are putting several circumstantial and coincidental items together and concluding that Porter will "double" their operation within 12 months. I agree that Porter's operations lead in the direction of expansion but the extent of that expansion has always been our difference of opinion. Also, I have read of Porter intentions to expand using Ottawa and another base in Alberta.
I have always maintained that there has to be a balance uses on the waterfront. The airport needs to be restricted to an amount of flights that doesn't turn the waterfront into a dead zone in the heart of the city. I believe that Porter operating around 120 flights per day can be accommodated - any more than that and the balance is tipped too far in the wrong direction.
Mr. Freeman, I believe Community Air has an obligation to the citizens they claim to represent - an obligation to be factual, credible and reasonable. In my opinion, alarmist and fear mongering tactics don't jive with those obligations. This is why I took issue with Mr. Sparrow many years ago - because of his methods and approach.
You already have several significant and reasonable issues that are well documented and deserve attention and rectification. Don't cloud the real issues by cluttering the landscape with red herrings, speculation and alarmist language.
On a related note, I took some issue with "Very worried mom" regarding noise complaints for a similar reason. If you complain about every single event, regardless of severity and REAL impact on your lives, it would stand to reason that the LEGITIMATE complaints would be covered by the mountain of paperwork containing less than deserving items. For example, I'm talking about arrivals or departures at 11:01 or 11:02 PM, engine maintenance runs at 1:45PM etc. Sure these are annoyances but how do they compare to engine maintenance done at 3:30AM or an arrival at 11:55PM etc...
It becomes a "cry wolf" scenario where the real and deserving complaints don't get the attention they deserve and the community loses credibility for complaining about every single event without filtering the real issues from the perceived ones. Believe it or not - I'm trying to increase the odds of your issues being addressed rather than buried under clutter.
Take Care
Joe
Comments