T.F. Green runway plan gets FAA OK

The FAA has approved a plan to extend the main northeast-southwest runway at T.F. Green Airport by an additional 1,534 feet with a 600-foot safety area. /
The FAA has approved a plan to extend the main northeast-southwest runway at T.F. Green Airport by an additional 1,534 feet with a 600-foot safety area. /
WARWICK – The Federal Aviation Administration gave its preliminary blessing on Tuesday to the Rhode Island Airport Corporation’s preferred plan for increasing capacity at T.F. Green Airport by extending the main runway southward and shifting its shorter crosswind runway. RIAC’s plan calls for T.F. Green’s main northeast-southwest runway to be expanded with 1,534 feet of…
To read the full story, Subscribe or
Subscribe to PBN
- Advertisement -

3 COMMENTS

  1. Let’s not forget other neighorhoods already affected by the noise and pollution–those which the airport will not be buying out or soundproofing. I am sure we will endure more sleepless nights due to those allegedly important late-night flights. How did we ever survive without them? Its just more bad news as far as I am concerned. Any financial benefit will certainly not be enjoyed by me, my neighborhood, my city or my state. Thanks for nothing, FAA.

  2. The cost for all of this is a little steep and safety is compromised.

    RIAC consistently borrows for expansions. With almost $300 million in bonds and loans currently on the books, RIAC’s debt service is more than half of its gross. Even if the FAA provides 75% of this $170 million expansion, RIAC will be very hard pressed to float a bond for the remainder. Note that there is another $200 million mentioned in the story. FAA will not fund that piece. Wnen all is said and done, RIAC would need to borrow an additional $238 million. No bond rating agency would ever approve that level of debt.

    Another interesting note: Mr. Dillon talks about 600 foot safety areas. FAA standards call for 1,000 foot safety areas. By shoehorning this runway expansion into an area that takes ten or so houses, rather than about 200 houses that such an expansion would normally take, creates a safety issue that does not currently exist. Most crashes occur during landings, not takeoffs. The longer runway actually creates a safety problem because the all-important undershoot areas are comprimised. The current main runway is much safer than the proposed alternative according to FAA safety documents.