The math on this is staggering for a population of less than 1,000 people annually. If air travel is a must for these folks isn't there a cheaper way?

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/28...ay-for-no-one-in-alaska/?hpt=hp_t2

Maybe this runway will attract more tourists to fly up there 

wilco737
  

Well, that's $65k per job "saved". Better deal than Solyndra...

The real question is how much has Trident Seafoods contributed to the Alaska politicians? How much did it cost them, beyond the $1 million they are contributing to the project, to buy the project for themselves?

From the link provided:

Quote: Should officials get it all figured out and funded, who'll benefit? Akutan has a year-round population of 100, but that spikes to about 1,000 in the summer when Trident Seafoods processing plant, the largest seafood processing plant in North America, is in operation, the Dispatch reports. Trident is contributing $1 million to the project, the Dispatch says.

Tugg

Quoting tugger (Reply 3): The real question is how much has Trident Seafoods contributed to the Alaska politicians? How much did it cost them, beyond the $1 million they are contributing to the project, to buy the project for themselves?

I actually think a runway is probably needed, we all need food and you have to go where the fish are. The bigger question is why a 4500 foot runway costs $64 million. I think that should be reviewed.

The question is why build it on the inaccessible Akun Island? If there is no space on Akutan then there is no space on Akutan. The $64 mil would be just the beginning of the spending.

Quoting Alaska Dispatch: That runway is actually being built six miles across open sea to the east of the city of Akutan, on Akun Island, an uninhabited piece of land home only to rolling tundra and a number of wild cows.

The people are going to need helicopters to get to the airport!

There must be a way to carve out some land for a runway next to that village (the city of Akutan).

Most people have no idea of the scale of airports in the US. There are thousands of airports. This would not break the top 250 (maybe not even top 1,000) and yet you see this kind of spending. Many countries don't have $64m for their national capital's main airport.

Point of this post, we are overbuilt.

"And why is this necessary? Air service to Akutan is now provided by World War II-era amphibious aircraft operated by Peninsula Airways. Those are becoming increasing difficult to maintain, Peninsula Vice President Brian Carricaburu told the Dispatch."

A couple of new DHC6s on floats. Problem sorted.

/thread

The project is ridiculous from any point of view.
The cost is enormous and the location of the airport ... unbelievable!

Next thing someone would propose drilling a tunnel under that straight.
Drill, baby, drill!

Quoting motif1 (Reply 5): There must be a way to carve out some land for a runway next to that village (the city of Akutan).

There are too many Part 77 airspace obstructions next to the village. The topography of the island the village is on only allows aircraft to approach from one direction.

Quoting enilria (Reply 4): I actually think a runway is probably needed, we all need food and you have to go where the fish are. The bigger question is why a 4500 foot runway costs $64 million. I think that should be reviewed.

I'm on the fence with this project, but keep in mind that the Trident processing plant there is the largest plant of it's type in North America. The 1,000 seasonal jobs there related to the seafood industry are not all the jobs that are created because the plant is located there. Trident has plants that likely use this product from Alaska to Washington state.

Also, PenAir is proposing to service the facility with Saab 340's, so it's unlikely the aircraft will fly out finished product. For those of you who've ever experienced the Alaska fishing industry it's not uncommon for tons of salmon, halibut, crab, etc. to be sent down via air freight. Not so in this case. It will provide emergency air evac capability for locals/temp workers and access to the town.

For comparison, the small town my mom lives in Alaska can only be accessed by ferry or plane. When she has to have more than just minor emergency treatment for anything, she's put on a plane and flown to Anchorage on an air ambulance.

Is there a financially viable alternative to air service altogether? How long is a hypothetical ferry ride to the nearest airport with existing commercial service? Why not a boat for most people and a heliport for medevac?

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 10): Is there a financially viable alternative to air service altogether? How long is a hypothetical ferry ride to the nearest airport with existing commercial service? Why not a boat for most people and a heliport for medevac?

I agree.

I don't know how much operating a large helicopter costs but at least it would not need a full blown airport.
Can't such communities have scheduled helicopter service? There are helicopters that can carry a lot of people and cargo.

Passenger Helicopter service from downtown, sorry main street, sorry the main Oak tree in the middle of town to the nearest commercial airstrip seems the most reasonable solution. However that assumes the FREE MARKET can support that service with the few inhabitants. Since this wreaks of socializing losses and privatizing profit, the Trident folks will clearly benefit at an astronomical proportion to the folks that contributed to the dollars they are blowing on this pork barrel project.



Sorry, couldn't help that rant. Staying on topic, Alaska air ambulances travel immense distances against hostile conditions. Helipad, even subsidized, will be a better spend than a runway you can't even figure out how to reach.

Quoting simplikate (Reply 14):

The distance from Akutan to the nearest airport (Unalaska) is 31.6 nm.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 15): The distance from Akutan to the nearest airport (Unalaska) is 31.6 nm.

More commonly known as Dutch Harbor.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 12): No, we need to stop eating so much fish from places that are hard to reach. Fishing is a very expensive, very subsidized industry that has lead to whole sections of oceans with very little fish in them. So now we go to more and more remote locations to find large fish populations.

The Alaska fishery is one of the most sustainable fisheries in the world. Since 1959, the Alaska constitution has mandated that “fish...be utilized, developed and maintained on the sustained yield principle”, because of that every aspect of Alaska’s fisheries have been strictly regulated, closely monitored and rigidly enforced for over five decades.

[Edited 2011-09-28 13:35:41]

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 16): The Alaska fishery is one of the most sustainable fisheries in the world. Since 1959, the Alaska constitution has mandated that “fish...be utilized, developed and maintained on the sustained yield principle”, because of that every aspect of Alaska’s fisheries have been strictly regulated, closely monitored and rigidly enforced for nearly five decades.

This is great but let's leave Trident to solve their own logistic issues.

Quoting simplikate (Reply 14): Passenger Helicopter service from downtown, sorry main street, sorry the main Oak tree in the middle of town to the nearest commercial airstrip seems the most reasonable solution. However that assumes the FREE MARKET can support that service with the few inhabitants.

Of course the free market cannot support that service. As it is their local seaplane airline gets $700,000 EAS money.

If the seas are so rough out there then why would you want to rely on sea plane and boats? Helicopters seem to be the only viable option.
Why not establish a passenger helicopter service to Dutch Harbor with the EAS money?

Maybe Alaska could pay for it themselves by withholding some of the oil money they give to residents every year. If the runway is that important to Alaska, they can pay for it. Or the seafood processing company can pay.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 16): The Alaska fishery is one of the most sustainable fisheries in the world. Since 1959, the Alaska constitution has mandated that “fish...be utilized, developed and maintained on the sustained yield principle”, because of that every aspect of Alaska’s fisheries have been strictly regulated, closely monitored and rigidly enforced for over five decades.

Only after overfishing, murdering of otters and eagles, etc. lead to this control, and still with populations lower than were there before fishing started. Not to mention that this regulation leads to higher costs, and those high costs are not passed on to the consumer due to subsidizing the industry with transportation projects, tax breaks, etc. to "protect jobs" and the like. If the true cost of fish from Alaska were passed on to consumers, less of it would be sold.

As stated above, Trident wants to fish this area or process fish from this area? They should foot the cost of getting employees there. Not citizens from New England or Florida, for example, who have their own fishing industries to worry about.

Quoting motif1 (Reply 17): This is great but let's leave Trident to solve their own logistic issues.

Based on that comment you're fine with removing flights to Adak, St.Paul Island, and Nome. I'm no fan of the EAS as it applies to the lower 48 but having traveled to many places in Alaska there's a reason that some of these places receive subsidies. There's simply no alternative access.

Would you prefer forced resettlement of Alaska Natives so we don't have to subsidize air service to Adak or Nikolski? There's no other way to get there other than plane or boat.

Quoting enilria (Reply 4): I actually think a runway is probably needed, we all need food and you have to go where the fish are.

Not in this situation. If the company needs to get its food out then it should pay for that.

Quoting RobK (Reply 7): A couple of new DHC6s on floats. Problem sorted.

  

Quoting simplikate (Reply 14): Passenger Helicopter service from downtown, sorry main street, sorry the main Oak tree in the middle of town to the nearest commercial airstrip seems the most reasonable solution. However that assumes the FREE MARKET can support that service with the few inhabitants. Since this wreaks of socializing losses and privatizing profit, the Trident folks will clearly benefit at an astronomical proportion to the folks that contributed to the dollars they are blowing on this pork barrel project.

It might be cheaper to just MOVE the entire processing facility over to where the airport is to be than to build and maintain and provided services for a remote airport.

But of course then Trident Seafood would have to pay for that rather than the US taxpayer.

Tugg

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 20): Based on that comment you're fine with removing flights to Adak, St.Paul Island, and Nome. I'm no fan of the EAS as it applies to the lower 48 but having traveled to many places in Alaska there's a reason that some of these places receive subsidies. There's simply no alternative access. Would you prefer forced resettlement of Alaska Natives so we don't have to subsidize air service to Adak or Nikolski? There's no other way to get there other than plane or boat.

What I meant was Trident would benefit the most of this project although the proposition is so ridiculous that even they would have hard time utilizing that airport.

I wholeheartedly agree with EAS for truly remote areas like that but for a village of 100 people there must be a more efficient way of providing EAS. The $77 mil project is only to the benefit of Trident.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 19): Only after overfishing, murdering of otters and eagles, etc. lead to this control, and still with populations lower than were there before fishing started.

And existing fishery populations don't need to be at levels they were before we started harvesting them as a food source. For the same reason don't need 1.4 million deer in Missouri. Besides, you're talking about 50 years ago not today.

Quoting enilria (Reply 4): I actually think a runway is probably needed, we all need food and you have to go where the fish are. The bigger question is why a 4500 foot runway costs $64 million. I think that should be reviewed.

Building the airport will require around 800,000 cubic yards of excavation in a remote area. Add that to the cost of moving equipment, housing construction workers, and delivering materials that number doesn't surprise me. One of the alternative sites at Fish Banks would have required nearly twice as much excavation cost approximately $36,700,000 more than the proposed location.

Oh, and by the way the Akutan Volcano is on the island. Having an airport allows for emergency evacuation...

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 19): Not citizens from New England or Florida, for example, who have their own fishing industries to worry about.

But Maine alone was willing to take $8,338,859 in EAS money last year. Seems like Alaska didn't get anything for that other than a willing consumer for their oil and fish. For that matter Nebraska got $11,183,834 just slightly under what Alaska got and all of the NE cities and towns were assessable by car.

Quoting enilria (Reply 4): a 4500 foot runway

I guess they won't be seeing any jet service even in the summer.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 24): Quoting enilria (Reply 4): a 4500 foot runway I guess they won't be seeing any jet service even in the summer.

I guess you haven't seen their bush(jet) pilots lately!  

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 24): I guess they won't be seeing any jet service even in the summer.

AS used to serve Dutch with a 732-combi. The runway there is 3,900 feet. PenAir does that flight now.

Here's Dutch Harbor


View Large View Medium

Photo © Dan Gasper


[Edited 2011-09-28 15:13:57]

how much would service with a couple chinooks cost vs building an airport? Seems like a couple large helicopters would be far more useful for service in this region.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 27): how much would service with a couple chinooks cost vs building an airport? Seems like a couple large helicopters would be far more useful for service in this region.

Wiki has them @ $35 Million per copy. But that's with all the Military gear! Figure half that for slicks... So you get 2 for $35M?

That saves about $30M off the current project... You can seat about 40 pacs and sling load 6 tons of Salmon in a single lift!

Sounds like a winner to me...  

[Edited 2011-09-28 15:46:15]

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 27): how much would service with a couple chinooks cost vs building an airport? Seems like a couple large helicopters would be far more useful for service in this region.

"Helicopter service into Akutan was considered early on in the planning process. However, FAA and the sponsor rejected it based on a detailed analysis showing helicopters cannot provide reliable access to the community. There are no present or prospective commercial helicopter service providers in Unalaska or nearby airports. In addition, PenAir, the only regional air carrier now serving or with plans to serve the City of Akutan, has no regulatory authorization to fly rotary winged aircraft. The carrier neither possesses such craft nor do they have plans to add helicopters to its fleet."

All you ever wanted to know about this project in a source considerably better than a media article.

http://dot.alaska.gov/creg/akutan/assets/AkutanEA_report.pdf

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 10): How long is a hypothetical ferry ride to the nearest airport with existing commercial service? Why not a boat for most people and a heliport for medevac?

As explained in the article, the main problem is the dangerous seas that and bad weather that frequently make navigation difficult or impossible, with a costly impact on fishing business. Airports are subject to weather too, but probably to a lesser extent. So, could the new airport offset some of the economical cost of the unreliable sea access?

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 20): I'm no fan of the EAS as it applies to the lower 48 but having traveled to many places in Alaska there's a reason that some of these places receive subsidies. There's simply no alternative access.

Well, I agree with this. We all have to keep in mind that every single of our roads is basically subsidized. So far, I have yet to hear anybody objecting to this idea. Well, some object, but they are still happy to find roads to drive where they need to go! This town has no roads, so they have to use other means of communication. Don't get me wrong, $ 64 million or not is not going to make this place more easily accessible than Chicago. They will still be the ones to be isolated, just a little less now.

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 30): Well, I agree with this. We all have to keep in mind that every single of our roads is basically subsidized.

Very true indeed.

And as a US taxpayer, I don't necessarily mind ALL OF US shelling out the $100 million for that damn landing strip.

Overall, it makes the whole country that much more a rich experience.


-----
What I do mind is that all we hear in the contiguous 48 is how Alaska is so self-sufficient the rest of us should be ashamed of ourselves.

Alaska is beautiful, and the US should do everything possible to keep it that way while safely exploiting the natural resources available.

But those very independent folks who still depend on the rest of us down here in the lowlands should at least acknowledge us once in a while, thank us, and not kick dirt in our faces.



Cheers!

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 29): PenAir, the only regional air carrier now serving or with plans to serve the City of Akutan, has no regulatory authorization to fly rotary winged aircraft. The carrier neither possesses such craft nor do they have plans to add helicopters to its fleet

I read that PDF. Interesting read but I don't buy the reasoning against heli service. If PenAir want the business then they learn to fly choppers. I'm not saying that they should buy their own because they wouldn't be able to afford them and they'd never make money off them but not being certified to fly choppers is not an excuse.

Quoting RobK (Reply 7): A couple of new DHC6s on floats. Problem sorted.

2 mill a pop, and no runway needed. that's better than 64 million and a way to get people to their essential air service.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 29): "Helicopter service into Akutan was considered early on in the planning process. However, FAA and the sponsor rejected it based on a detailed analysis showing helicopters cannot provide reliable access to the community.

then what is the point of having a helicopter be the method of transport to the airport in nowhere?

I may have missed something and if I did I apologize for the intrusion. However, by building the $64 million runway on Akun Island, how is this going to help the residents of Akutan. They still have to cross those "treacherous" waters by boat, ferry, or a dilapidated sea plane to get to the airport. It would be better to chopper them the 31 nm to Unalaska.

Hey guys.

Before I chime in here, I am going to let you know my background. We are talking about the part of the world that I consider home. I spent many years in Cold Bay, Ak which about 140 miles west. I spent that time as a kid and then returned working for RAA back in the mid 1990's.

I personally have not been to Akutan but I have been out of Dutch Harbor on serveral occasions. I can tell by most of the comments here that people don't know the weather conditions out there. This is the part of the world that "Deadliest Catch" is filmed and at times I don't even think their footage does the place justice. Actually thinking about it the Northwestern at the end of one of the seasons did an off-load at Akutan.

I was in Cold Bay in the 1990's when one day Penair's Turbine Goose went missing returning from Akutan. And I saw the looks on the CDB Penair pilots when they didn't find it. That plane has never been found. I have also sat at a dispatch desk in Anchorage with a pending medivac flight on the books waiting for word that the weather lifted and a person in distress has been removed by the local carrier or the USCG to a hub where I could get a plane it to take them the rest of the way to a hospital. I have sat on the dock at Cold Bay when a fishing boat with a burn patient had to turn around and go back to the village it came from because the waves where too high to dock.

Needless to say I don't see the money for this airport as a high price to save lives. And I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who haven't been there talking about how to save a buck.

Quoting enilria (Reply 4): The bigger question is why a 4500 foot runway costs $64 million. I think that should be reviewed.

I'll do it for you. Every grain of cement, piece of equipment for that job will first have to be barged in from Seattle and landed over the beach. Every person that is hired for it will be from out of town and will have to be fed and house. Any parts that are needed that aren't shipped by boat will have to be flow in on that same goose that the airport is supposed to replace, same with any new or leaving construction workers. That is why these projects are so expensive up here compared to the lower 48. If they want to have asphalt made for the surface they are going to have to haul all that equipment out there, not just hire the local hot mix guy to deliver it to your site. You are going to have to pay for that equipment to be at that project if it is used or not. A lower 48 plant more then likely spreading it's costs among several projects. More then likely that plant that you paid to have hault to Akutan and back will only be used for the one job up there. How expensive is the shipping, it isn't unheard off for equipment to be abandoned because it isn't economic to ship it back after the job. I can think of one mining project that when the reclamation was done buried it's equipment because there was nothing else to do with it.

Quoting motif1 (Reply 5): The question is why build it on the inaccessible Akun Island? If there is no space on Akutan then there is no space on Akutan.

It got mentioned already but Akutan is a volcanic island (I think it last erupted about six years ago) the aleutian islands are typically very steep and rocky volcanic islands. There isn't a lot of flat space. In fact in WWII to make the airport at Adak, a tidal march was dammed and drained to get enough flat ground to make it work. If you ever get a copy of "Report From the Aleutains" with was a WWII propaganda film by John Houston you can see video of P-39's using a sitll draining martson mat runway to conduct operations.

Quoting RobK (Reply 7): A couple of new DHC6s on floats. Problem sorted

Markair Express ran a couple along with a Caravan out of Dutch back in the 1990's. From what I understand neither of them can handle as much chop as a Goose can, which is a major reason why flights are canned. Also I don't ever recall seeing a Trotter fly out there. That big tail and high lift and mounted wing doesn't handle high winds very well. How strong you ask, I personally have done a 727 turn in 60kt winds....steady gusts where higher.

Not in the Aleutians but this photo illustrates my point.


View Large View Medium

Photo © Daniel Danielsen

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 9): Also, PenAir is proposing to service the facility with Saab 340's, so it's unlikely the aircraft will fly out finished product

Actually Penair has at least 1 if not 2 cargo configured Saabs. But the Akutan facility was never configured for fresh product as far as I am aware. Mostly it handled crab and groundfish species, which would be frozen and shipped out. But the airport would make flying cod wad out much easier.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 10): Is there a financially viable alternative to air service altogether? How long is a hypothetical ferry ride to the nearest airport with existing commercial service?

Actually the Alaska Marine Highway system does stop there, I don't know the current scheduale but if memory serves it was about a once a month trip.

As far as open water, rent any number or episodes of "Deadliest Catch" that is the open Bering and North Pacific.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 10): Why not a boat for most people and a heliport for medevac?

It may be 40 miles by air but by boat you are looking at 12-14 hours I guess in fairly calm seas. Rough seas, it isn't unheard of for boats to be pushed backwards.....again don't believe me, rent deadliest catch. Murphy says medivacs don't happen in good weather.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 20): Would you prefer forced resettlement of Alaska Natives so we don't have to subsidize air service to Adak or Nikolski

The US goverment already did that in WWII. My ramp lead spent in youth in a US concentration camp just like the Japanese did. I don't think money is a good reason for genocide. Also we are talking about some of the oldest continously inhabited settlements in north america......actually Nikolski is (they have a runway, I've been there). Permanently evacuating them for money doesn't strike me as right

Quoting motif1 (Reply 32): I read that PDF. Interesting read but I don't buy the reasoning against heli service

Don't believe the PDF, feel free to FOIA the technical document from the FAA. It's part of the public record, they're required by law to share it with you.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 35): We are talking about the part of the world that I consider home.

Glad you showed up, for a while there I thought I was the only one who knew what the conditions were that was going to chime in.

ok, so it sounds like we are going to spend $64 million on unreliable air service for a single company.

I'd think the real answer here is to tell them to either find float planes that work and will be servicable into the future, or move thier facility. I am unaware of any reason it MUST be there.

I doubt this would rank in the top 10,000 places we need to spend money to improve america's ablity to do buisness.

Quoting wilco737 (Reply 1): Maybe this runway will attract more tourists to fly up there

Anutters on spotting trip[s?  

Cheers
micha

Quoting ZKEOJ (Reply 38): Anutters on spotting trip[s?

Well, that would be a special place to meet. Not LHR, MAN, AMS or FRA... No at that airport... Would be interesting to see how many actually show up...

wilco737
  

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 16): The Alaska fishery is one of the most sustainable fisheries in the world. Since 1959, the Alaska constitution has mandated that “fish...be utilized, developed and maintained on the sustained yield principle”, because of that every aspect of Alaska’s fisheries have been strictly regulated, closely monitored and rigidly enforced for over five decades.

The sustainability of the Alaska fishery has little, if anything to do with what the State of Alaska does. The politicians up there would destroy the place if they could. The fishery is really protected by the fabulously successful quota system put in place by the late, great Ron Brown during the early part of the Clinton Administration. They had to drag the fishing interests kicking and screaming into the system, yet it has protected the fisheries and made the fishermen significantly more financially stable.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 20): Based on that comment you're fine with removing flights to Adak, St.Paul Island, and Nome. I'm no fan of the EAS as it applies to the lower 48 but having traveled to many places in Alaska there's a reason that some of these places receive subsidies. There's simply no alternative access.

Can't speak for the guy who made the comment but actually I am. There is no constitutional right to air service, if your town is too remote well it is too remote. Suck it up. If you live in Arizona there is no constitutional right to A/C, if you can't afford it you sweat, if you can't stand sweating you move.
Alaska through their oil profits can cover this if they see fit.

PS, just so you don't think I am picking on Alaska, I am also for gutting Amtrak - if the Northeastern states want to run an Acela between DC and Boston - the only route that truly makes sense in terms of passenger rail, they can get together and do so. NYS can subsidize NY to Albany as well, but frankly given the prices on that route, they have to make some money.

And yeah, I am OK with the rest of the country not contributing to my subway ride (so long as i don't contribute to others since the NY subways get far far less from FEDGOV than any other mass transit system)

Hoover Dam? Sell it, if Nevada and Arizona have to spend a lot more money for energy, well who told you to live in a freakin' desert. If that hurts Arizona farmers, well WTF are you doing farming in a desert?

Quoting csavel (Reply 41): csavel

Based on your proposals it sounds like you would have this country be a much weaker, poorer place. Gone would be the days when the USA would have any economic power or military might.

For the airport in Alaska, if this is the best proposal and it holds as a better and more reliable option compared to other proposals, then it may well be worth the funding. If it does not pay itself off in terms of prosperity for the greater economy together, then surely it will in terms of saving human life.

Oh, and for the folks that say we spend all that money on subsidized roads, that is true! The main difference is that (at least theoretically) the road system is paid for and maintained by user fees (aka gas taxes).

Like many others here, I think this is a pork project that primarily benefits Trident. It allows them to staff their plant. One does not have a "right" to air service if you choose to live remotely.

SLCPilot

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 43): Like many others here, I think this is a pork project that primarily benefits Trident. It allows them to staff their plant. One does not have a "right" to air service if you choose to live remotely.

Well said!

Quoting L-188 (Reply 35): Needless to say I don't see the money for this airport as a high price to save lives. And I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who haven't been there talking about how to save a buck.

We all have enough common sense to understand remote geographies, treacherous seas and high winds without having been there. Nowhere is this runway being pursued ( even by its staunchest proponents ) for "life saving". Helicopter Air Ambulance is much better to go 31nm than a bumpy fairy ride that isn't reliable based on sea conditions.

Trident CHOSE to make money there at a completive advantage over other Fisheries and the 100 locals chose to be there. Civil Aviation is not a right, it is a function of market forces and private industry.

I bet if each resident and each Trident shareholder had to proportionately contribute to the cost, they would find all kinds of solutions. It's easy to spend other peoples money.

I want to thank the people with local experience who contributed to this thread but I still cannot see how that airport would help much if (almost) every time you commute to it you are reliving a "Deadliest Catch" episode.

One of the articles, I forgot if it was the CNN or the Alaskan's, stated that the hovercrafts envisioned for this project have proven unreliable in 6+ ft seas. I just do not see how that airport would work! Sorry to repeat myself. If saving lives and reliability are the goals then let's buy the community a couple of heavy duty choppers and send a few of PenAir's pilots to chopper training.

Cheers!
m1

Let's move past whether 100 locals and a Corporation deserve it for a moment and consider the absurdity of locating it so far away. Even if we assume a free market could support a runway, it seems short sighted to locate this runway across hostile seas.

A runway is a wonderful capitalized asset that can last decades and provide tremendous ROI. Again, looking past the "pork", why not spend an amount to engineer a runway on the island properly. I have landed on some pretty bizarre carved out runways in the world. I do not believe a better engineering solution does not exist. This stinks from every angle.

Quoting simplikate (Reply 46): why not spend an amount to engineer a runway on the island properly.

They have the second most active volcano in Alaska on top of everything else. I wouldn't put any assets there.

Quoting simplikate (Reply 46): This stinks from every angle.

 

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 37): ok, so it sounds like we are going to spend $64 million on unreliable air service for a single company.

Federal money is spent all the time on projects proposed by a single company and/or entity. I'm not saying that's right in all cases but in many of them it is. Port faculties, airports, ski areas, and guide services are all ones that come to mind, they are the sole proponent of the project and receive funding to have the agency review and/or implement improvements.

Quoting simplikate (Reply 44): Nowhere is this runway being pursued ( even by its staunchest proponents ) for "life saving".

Not true. One of the main purposes of the project is to allow for emergency evacuation of the village during volcanic activity and to allow reliable air ambulance service.

Quoting csavel (Reply 41): Can't speak for the guy who made the comment but actually I am. There is no constitutional right to air service, if your town is too remote well it is too remote.

There's no constitutional right to an interstate highway system either, but I bet you use it.

Quoting SLCPilot (Reply 43): The main difference is that (at least theoretically) the road system is paid for and maintained by user fees (aka gas taxes).

To be clear, not all the money that that goes to the FHWA comes from gas taxes. But, yes much of it does come from user fees.

Quoting flyorski (Reply 40): Based on your proposals it sounds like you would have this country be a much weaker, poorer place. Gone would be the days when the USA would have any economic power or military might.

Not at all, The idea is this, many things as I've outlined in my reply are things that Americans don't have a right to expect from their government, but that often they do expect from their government. Interstate highway system for example. Now the problem I have with this is that this airport isn't JFK or LAX, or even ANC. Americans who live in extremely remote areas or areas with extremes of climate ought not to expect the rest of the country to help pay for that.

To wit my opposition to large dam projects in the West. It encourages people to be wasteful and not to live realistically given where they live. Most of the west is arid. That is just the way it is. A lot of people like it because no snow and lots of sunny days. Most of Minnesota is cold in wintertime. Do you know the biggest rice growing state is California? Cotton too? WTF do they get the water from that? Ergo a lot of Californians and Arizonans don't know how to use water economically. Gigantic taxpayer funded projects. This means An analogy is if the FEDGOV decided to subsidize massive heating for Vermont and Minnesota, and people built gigantic greenhouses for citrus fruit or similar. and then when people began to say, this is insanity you'd have "Americans for Minnesota oranges... Tell congress not to put hard working Minnesota citrus growers out of business."

Quoting L-188 (Reply 33): Needless to say I don't see the money for this airport as a high price to save lives. And I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who haven't been there talking about how to save a buck.

Relocating 100 people to a less remote place would cost way less than $64 million. They can each have a nice enough house in Anchorage for $640k including moving expenses.

There is simply no valid reason for people to be living this remotely in the modern age. Maybe back 200 years ago when it didn't matter where you lived because there was no real value to living in a city other than way of life, but today, if you want medical care, if you want supplies, if you want emergency services, if you want to be connected to the developed world, then LIVE IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD.

We as US taxpayers should not be required to pay for your choice to stay in such a remote location.

As for the company with the fish processing plant: they should pay their own way or move to a better location. If neither is feasible... shut it down. Or if the state thinks it's important, let the state use their oil money to pay for it, and cut down on the oil tax rebates given to others in the state. After all, if those in Alaska were told that they would lose their yearly payout in order to supply these services to remote people, would they be as sympathetic? Would we hear them all say "you non-Alaskans just don't get it" when they are the one's footing the bill? My guess is their tune would change pretty quick...

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 48): Relocating 100 people to a less remote place would cost way less than $64 million

Relocating people doesn't work well for the US government, see "The Trail of Tears" and "Japanese Internment" Actually the Aleuts also got wrapped up on that last one, so they have already done their forced march time