Aport Master Plan - Should it be Renamed?
I read an article today at the Atlanta Journal Constitution about a local debate regarding their airport, PDK. It seems some residents are unhappy with the airport master plan. (Well actually it seems more like one unhappy resident.)
“If you look at the things they’re doing and not doing with the master plan it looks like they’re trying to lay the groundwork to make this a commercial airport.” - Larry Foster of “PDK Watch”.
This is too common as of late and more and more airports closing all of the time. An airport probably doesn’t exist that doesn’t have someone who wants to close it. So here is where maybe we can change something about the process.
Why do we call it an Airport Master Plan?
I think the word plan is what causes so much distress. Citizens not involved with aviation read a master plan and they think that it is the blueprint of what will happen with the airport…. as if it were a signed contract.
Reality couldn’t be further from the truth. Most airport master plans are simply a compilation of all possibilities for an airport. It doesn’t address questions like “is this economically feasible?”, “does this make sense for our airport?”, nor “should we do this?”.
An airport master plan is more like the results of a brainstorming session. But citizens see a master plan more like a roadmap of what will happen. What would happen if we started calling it like it is? What if we called the document Airport Ideas Explored or Airport Master Options?
landed on ajc.
Related Stories
POSTED IN: General Aviation, aviation
0 opinions for Aport Master Plan - Should it be Renamed?
No one has left a comment yet. You know what this means, right? You could be first!
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: