I'm not sure who the 'Net Jet' crowd is. As far as fractionals, I think
they're typically small jets that still don't need 6000 feet. I think you're
looking at attracting airline carriers. I know US Airways was there in 96
when I landed there.

Expansion wouldn't hurt GA. A short delay for wake turbulance is a small
price to pay for commercial aircraft paying most of the expenses. It's kinda
like motorcycles using the highway system. They certainly don't need six
lane highways, but it's nice to be able to cruise to Disney along 95 rather
than Route 1.

Now some questions for you:

What is your goal?

Are you trying to eliminate the cowboys? General Aviation? All Aviation?

What would make you happy?

You earlier stated (correct me if I am mis-stating your position) that you
really wanted minimum altitudes and noise abatement procedured enforced, but
because that isn't being done, you are going after everything aviation.



"Skylune" wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
Steve: A serious question for you as a GA aviator. Since a runway
lengthening from 5,000 feet to 5,500 or 6,000 is not necessary for any
normal GA operations, wouldn't that mean the airport is trying to attract
the Net Jet crowd and the other fractional jet ownerships? That would be
my guess. Rumor around town has it that they have their eyes on Fed Ex
because the costs at BED are much higher (landing fees, fuel, etc....)

If I'm correct, wouldn't that expansion actually harm the GA pilot
community that currently hangars their planes at the airport? Maybe the
GA pilots don't want the lengthening either?

Just wondering....