Back to Squawk list
  • 41

TN airport grounded with complaints of millions in taxpayer waste

eklendi
 
CHATTANOOGA — Complaints about millions of dollars of taxpayer waste at the Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport start in that city, make their way to the governor’s office in Nashville and then eventually go to Washington, D.C.There are no results — the complaints only boomerang back to Chattanooga, where they started in the first place. Apparently, this is a matter that only the nine-member Chattanooga Airport Authority board can do anything about, as far as D.C. and Nashville are concerned. (watchdog.org) Daha Fazlası...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


bbabis
bbabis 7
Every point other posters have made is valid. What I will add is that the idea of this publicly funded FBO was fought from its inception by every fiscally minded intelligent person. Its just a case of another government agency or board ramrodding what they think or want regardless of the people's views.
Wfh
Wfh 5
This is the kind of stuff that just keeps raising the prices to general aviation. It is the ego of some airport board or manager running out of control.
EricClark
Eric Clark 9
I JUST WISH WE ALL HAD ACCESS TO WASTE THE GOVERNMENTS MONEY LIKE THEY DO.
wcutter
Will Cutter 8
Government should not compete with private enterprises as long as there is a desire of, and ability for the private sector to conduct such
n7224e
BC Hadley 4
Can anyone tell us why TAC Air "needed" competition?
joelwiley
joel wiley 7
Follow the money. Who in Wilson Air has ties to CAA?
preacher1
preacher1 2
Back in the early days of this thing, they(the board) decided that TacAir was too high on everything and that a municipally owned FBO would reduce prices and keep them honest. A survey of surrounding airports proved on the front end that wasn't so but they went ahead with this fiasco anyway,at least that's my memory of it. There may be an old post about it archived in FA from last year sometime but I'm not sure. Like I said below, you get what you pay for. That said, in most places, TacAir and others like them, price things toward the corporate $, probably as they should if you are in it for the money, and that may put it pricey for the local GA crowd, but I have no idea how the pricing structure at Chatty is structured
preacher1
preacher1 4
All I got to say is that these fears were raised in this forum several months ago and best I remember, it wasn't Tac-Air leading the charge as it is now and you can't blame them. We are based at FSM, know those folks personally up there and have been to about all of their other locations. It just don't get no better. You get what you pay for. Although we tanker, their jetA was about 565 and it was breaking 500 at Poteau, about 20 miles away, so it's not unreasonable. It's a hell of a note that an outfit sucking a cost plus municipal teat still loses money and can't overcome what's good. Tac Air is still there. Hang in there.

mryantacair
Michael Ryan 6
It seems to me that a government entity would have an unfair advantage over a private operator, in terms of operational expense. Since the government operation can be subsidized by taxpayer money and the private operation is not.
LearATP
R J 3
What a mess
bkathrins
Brad Kathrins 3
If the city wanted competition for TAC Air, they should have released an RFP. I'm guessing that it would have been far less than $4M. Dumping taxpayer money into a project like this is a waste and sends a terrible message to businesses that might want to move there.
Scottandre
Scott Andre 3
This is just another glaring example of a government entity trying and failing to compete with private enterprise and the free market.
BillyWalker
Billy Walker 3
More government interference with free enterprise. We need less government not more government!
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
From a Maintenance point of view, I have called upon TACAIR quite a few times. They do us a good job when we call them. I can understand the city wanting a competitor, but seems like they may be going about it in the wrong direction.
sprieser
Steve Prieser 1
It's too bad that more and more airport sponsors feel compelled to compete with and/or displace existing for-profit successful businesses - those that took the initial risk and made the capital expenditures required to build a succesful business.
willo
Bernard Klotz 1
A review of where the tax $ go at DPA would be of interest.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I kinda think with a new regeime in place is why this all of a sudden came to light.
GaAubie
Ken Hardy 1
Stupid is as Stupid does, notice that the Board members " people of color " are bailing out and going back to what they did before = the Hussle of someone else.
genethemarine
Gene spanos 1
Sounds much like another airport we know of.....
Where 5-8 $$ Million is still unaccounted for....
The Missing 2003' EIS federal tax dollars...
at O' Hare. Classified as the most corrupt
by the form Asst.U.S.Atty and former Dir. of the
Aviation Integrity Project.
" The Action at O' Hare Airport:
The Brunner Report
175 pages
mryantacair
Michael Ryan 0
If the CAA would have had to use their personal funds to start the state funded FBO it never would have happened. Risking other people's money is wrong, but easy for some to do when they have nothing to lose except credibility. It is easy for Obama to play golf with Tiger Woods, because he, like the CAA, was using other people's money.

Giriş

Hesabınız yok mu? Kişiselleştirilmiş özellikler, uçuş uyarıları ve daha fazlası için şimdi (ücretsiz) üye olun!
Bu web site tanımlama bilgileri kullanmaktadır. Bu web siteyi kullanarak ve bu sitede gezinerek, bunu kabul etmiş olursunuz.
Kapat
FlightAware uçuş takibinin reklamlarla desteklendiğini biliyor muydunuz?
FlightAware.com'dan gelen reklamlara izin vererek FlightAware'in ücretsiz kalmasını sağlamamıza yardım edebilirsiniz. harika bir deneyim sunmak adına reklamlarımızı anlamlı ve öne çıkmayacak şekilde tutmak için yoğun şekilde çalışıyoruz. FlightAware'deki whitelist adsreklamları güvenilir olarak görmek hızlı ve kolaydır, veya lütfen premium hesaplarımıza geçmeyi düşünün.
Kapat