Author Topic: Teterboro Airport  (Read 88054 times)

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3957
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2005, 06:45:39 PM »
It just keeps getting better...

FAA warns Teterboro pilots

Maybe someone can answer this:

Aside from serving as an airport for organ donations (a worthy cause) how does this airport benefit the same people it threatens and annoys?  I understand that ordinary people have to tolerate some minor inconveniences for the sake of commerce and industry, but no one can tell me (and I've been asking) how Teterboro serves folks like me and you. 

From what I'm hearing, the health and safety of a highly populated region (not to mention the quiet enjoyment of property) is compromised because Eminem, Ted Turner and Martha Stewart don't want to use Newark Airport when they go skiing at Telluride.   I'm sick of it.

I can live with Newark Airport.  I derive a benefit because I use it.  But if rich, inconsiderate celebrities and business people want to use Teterboro because it's "more convenient" then they can pay my property taxes via a whopping airport safety/convenience surcharge.

The Port Authority spokesperson said: "We're supportive of any measure that will enhance increased safety in the skies."   Why not impose a surcharge that discourages frivolous usage?
« Last Edit: March 18, 2005, 07:20:56 PM by Editor »

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3957
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #16 on: March 18, 2005, 07:15:30 PM »
Oh, and one more thing:

This is from The Herald.

"increased security measures implemented at large commercial airports have not been implemented at smaller general aviation airports, like Teterboro. Noncommercial airplanes and helicopters could become the new weapons of choice for al-Qaida."


Wonderful.

Click here for the story.

Offline Paul I

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2005, 11:55:21 AM »
I think creating a surcharge for planes taking offf and landing at Teterboro airport is a wonderful idea!

Unfortunately those who fly in and out of it will go alnong with paying it. This problem we have is all about money. 
Corporate money, celebrity money, rich people's money, Lobbyists money!

These people don't care about the families and towns
that live around the airport . They could care less.

We need to expose those people and flights and shame them, through media coverage!

Sometimes I count the number of flights taking off        flying over my house.  One morning I counted 28 planes between 7 am and 8 am. Thats absurd! Approximately one every 2 minutes.  Spewing out their pollution over
the children going to school and in the playgrounds...

Don' t those people in Government care?





Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3957
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #18 on: March 24, 2005, 10:38:59 AM »
Latest stories from 3/24/05 edition of The Record:

Teterboro probe cites jet's weight

Parsippany man indicted over use of laser pointer

From "Your Views"

Oh, yes, acting Governor Codey's consideration of using the Bendix site for international cargo storage is a great one ("Port's big plans," Page B-1, March 17). I'm sure area residents feel that having to contend with Teterboro Airport in their back yards isn't enough. So why not store tons of international cargo there, too?

We all know terrorists would never think of using cargo containers for acts of terror. And our roads aren't nearly congested enough. Higher levels of diesel exhaust from the tractor-trailers hauling the cargo, mixed with jet fuel exhaust, won't be a problem. I don't mind paying $185 for each of my three children's two-week supply of asthma medication.

I'm sure the subhead, "Teterboro site may help world trade," will inspire area residents to gladly sacrifice their health, and the health and well-being of their children. After all, what could be more important than "world trade," and all that goes with it? Especially right in our own back yards.

Catherine Cahill

Moonachie, March 18
« Last Edit: March 24, 2005, 10:46:59 AM by Editor »

Offline Hackensack Jazz

  • HackensackNow Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: -8
    • View Profile
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #19 on: March 30, 2005, 01:47:30 PM »
opinion -
1. I agree with the closing of Teterboro to non-essential so long as Army and/or CIA or DIA Warrant Officers can train, land, and fly there.
2. Limit craft, size, congestion and traffic patterns to adjusted acceptance.
3. Place 10:00 PM limit on prop craft lacking sufficiient buffer at a reccomendable decibel level.
4. Limit copters over city limits except for news and unmarked black helicopters, or mapping etc. (no joyriding!)

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3957
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #20 on: April 10, 2005, 10:17:38 AM »
This is a must read article:   Troubling uses for Teterboro

The author questions recently revealed uses for Teterboro including using it to send suspected terrorists off to Syria to be tortured.

In addition, the author writes:

Far too often, the question about Teterboro's potential danger overshadows another question: What kind of jet traffic does Teterboro cater to? But even more basic is this question: Is Teterboro's jet traffic really all that necessary - necessary enough for the feds to soundproof schools?

In January, many guests flying to Donald Trump's wedding in Florida departed from Teterboro. Apparently, these A-list celebrities simply would not stoop to using Newark, LaGuardia or JFK. In February, Teterboro was cited - praised, even - when a private jet was needed for a quick delivery of a professional basketball player to a game at Madison Square Garden. A flight on a commercial jet apparently just would not do.


Enough is Enough.  Residents really need to apply more pressure.  Keep writing, calling, emailing your elected officials and the NY/NJ Port Authority.  Nothing will happen unless there is a tremendous public outcry.

Find your Representative here
.
Email the Port Authority

At the end of the day, the Teterboro issue is simply a matter of weighing benefit against risk and burden.  So far, no one has shown any real benefit to factor into the equation.



« Last Edit: April 10, 2005, 10:34:49 AM by Editor »

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3957
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #21 on: April 13, 2005, 05:11:12 PM »
FAA Rulmaking Changes.  Affidavits needed. 

Here's your chance to make a difference.

From the City's official site: Click here.

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3957
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #22 on: April 14, 2005, 09:06:06 AM »
From The Record's "Your Views", April 14, 2005:

At last someone gets it ("Troubling uses for Teterboro," Opinion, Page |O-1, April 10). Columnist Mike Kelly spoke loudly and clearly on behalf of thousands who live with the terror that is Teterboro Airport.

What can a populace do when a government supports a policy that impairs health, harms children and hurts citizens economically? How can people fight a government agency, the Federal Aviation Administration, that operates outside the jurisdiction of state and local government? Perhaps we can look to Boston patriots in the 1770s for direction.

The incalculable irresponsibility that permits flying over Hackensack University Medical Center in spite of the original FAA impact study's concerns for safety speaks to the level of disregard for life.

Yes, this exploitation on behalf of a few wealthy individuals who unwittingly or irresponsibly affect the health of citizens around Teterboro Airport represents immoral activity and should end now.

Kevin Heaney


Hackensack, April 11

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3957
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #23 on: April 17, 2005, 10:55:48 AM »
Latest story: Teterboro pilots get told: Pay attention!

Unbelievable.

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3957
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #24 on: April 19, 2005, 09:38:29 AM »

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3957
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #25 on: April 22, 2005, 10:19:43 AM »

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3957
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #26 on: May 20, 2005, 11:52:34 PM »

Offline Editor

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3957
  • Karma: 17
    • View Profile
    • Hackensack Now
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #27 on: May 23, 2005, 09:32:06 AM »

Offline McKenna

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #28 on: May 23, 2005, 10:57:39 PM »
I think creating a surcharge for planes taking offf and landing at Teterboro airport is a wonderful idea!

There are surcharges, Landing Fees, storage, ramp space. They are not small fee's either. This airport is one of the most not to say profitable, but immense amounts of money go through there on a daily basis. You may all bring up issues about KTEB, but within 20 miles, we have KEWR, KLGA and KJFK. Going into those airports are planes that weigh up to 10 times the amount of the largest of the planes going into TEB. KTEB has been around much longer than most things in this area, therefore it is "grandfathered" in my mind. There are weight limits, Recently there was discussion of allowing the BBJ and ACJ to land, but that was not allowed due to their weight. KTEB has been here for 70+ years and will stay for many more.

Offline Rob Gartner

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Teterboro Airport
« Reply #29 on: May 24, 2005, 11:17:17 AM »
At what level of use should Teterboro be grandfathered? The traffic at Teterboro was mostly smaller prop planes twenty years ago. Now it is much larger jets. The only reason the Boeing Business Jet (at over 100,000 pounds) was stopped was because local citizen groups fought it. Boeing will be back to fight that battle again. Much of the noise problem in Hackensack is due to the installation of an ILS on runway 19. That just happened in the last 10 years. Should that be grandfathered too? Where does the growth of this airport end?

Yes, there are larger planes flying into Newark but commercial aviation is at least regulated. Airport security has been dramatically increased over the last few years at the bigger airports. Teterboro was largely exempt from those requirements. It wasnt a Newark Airport flight that ran into a building on Route 46. It wasnt a Newark Airport flight that crashed in the backyard of a Hasbrouck Heights home a few years back. It wasnt pilots from Newark getting warned by the FAA for not following the correct flight paths recently. Those planes flying a few hundred feet above Hackensack Medical Center arent going to Newark. On a broader scale, it wasnt a commercial airliner causing an evacuation of the White House a few weeks back.

As far as fees go, until recently, even Teterboros own website advertised their low cost as a reason to use the airport. Obviously, that was dropped once they started getting criticism.

The airport, in my opinion, has grown well beyond an acceptable level given its location. The noise, pollution and risk of an accident places an unfair burden on the surrounding communities. The Port Authority and the FAA have simply not demonstrated the ability or desire to mitigate the impact on local residents. Growth should not only be stopped. Traffic should be reduced.

 

anything