Report Inappropriate Comments

Editor's Note: RIAC CEO Kevin Dillon, who was shown this letter, questioned Langseth's figures and said many of his assumptions are faulty.'

Seems now that the FAA is in the process of a written "Re-Evalution" and made a written disclosure that "In 2012, the Rhode Island Airport Corporation and the Federal Aviation Administration determined that more detailed cost estimates had rendered the alternative selected in EIS infeasible." Infeasible financially. Infeasible environmentally. Infeasible as a sustainable business model.

Seems the politicians, union members, and chambers of commence are the ones who's assumptions are faulty. They can't even recognize that they do not have a sustainable business model and have financially damaged the airport's ability to remain as competitive.

To all politicians, union members, and chambers of commence who promoted this boondoggle, remember this. It is not the length of a runway or money spent that attracts more passengers. What attracts more passengers are the lowest air fares and that can only be accomplished with the lowest operating cost per passenger and that's obtained by holding back on building unnecessary infrastructure as an unnecessary 8,700' runway and unnecessary $300 million dollar garage.

Do the safety improvements, build the glycol pre-treatment plant, add business conference rooms within the terminal, allow distribution of our local paper, the Warwick Beacon in the terminal, and don't build anything that is not necessary including an 8,700' runway. For those who still don't agree, re-read the EIS chapter on runway length requirements, and look at the current fleet and airports served, airline business models, and you will agree that funding an 8,700' at this time will do more economic harm than good

From: RIAC should move ahead with glycol treatment plant

Please explain the inappropriate content below.