Highways in the sky may be about to ruin your life

  • Article by: TOM BECKEY
  • Updated: November 15, 2012 - 5:34 PM

New flight plans would be hell for the unlucky few.

  • 22
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
Lifeguard06Nov. 15, 12 7:07 PM

You do know the FAA controls the skies above your head. Not the Mac the met council or the city council decide the flight paths.

11
1
eslightNov. 15, 12 9:06 PM

This article should include a link to the runway map showing the detailed paths. I spent some time on the MAC website and could not find it.

10
1
jamgraNov. 15, 1211:39 PM

Please go to the Mac Noise website and click on the "Open Houses Scheduled for MSP Performance Based Navigation" link in the Latest News section. A link to the new maps are in there. There are also articles on the Star Tribune website that shows the new maps.

1
0
jamgraNov. 15, 1211:42 PM

This author is completely correct. I'm not even one of the new airplane highways, but my heart breaks for those people and communities that are. This is an unfair dumping of 100's of flights on the few who through random chance were unlucky enough to live under the new highways. The routes for these highways were decided literally by a software program that, of course, has consideration for the neighborhoods or people beneath the new superhighways. This is ludicrous.

3
4
texas_technomanNov. 16, 12 4:32 AM

We could move the airport...but we've got this football palace that we are going to build instead......

5
7
Frank BurtonNov. 16, 12 5:24 AM

Here's the link to MAC's statement about the FAA plan, and from where you can download the map: http://www.macnoise.com/news/open-houses-scheduled-msp-performance-based-navigation Here's the link to download the map directly: http://www.macnoise.com/pdf/msp-pbn-maps.pdf

2
0
traderbillNov. 16, 12 7:57 AM

Move the airport...I lived in Reno when they were issuing bonds to build a new airport so it was already cast in stone. But at a meeting it was suggested that 'later' they might move it to a site 30 miles away! This on the eve of the bond sale! Never happen. Face it, you couldn't build a 'new' airport anywhere in this country. Too much opposition. Not so when they were first built. Heck, a few flights a day, what's to worry about? Most homes were built after the airports were in place so they knew what to expect, certainly, not LESS traffic and with jets came more noise. But today's jets are quieter and take off quicker to reach an altitude where they can reduce thrust and noise. That's life...there are no guarantees. That does not mean I don't sympathize with those affected, but change happens. Generally for the common good.

9
4
FrankLNov. 16, 12 8:21 AM

The whole idea with Satellite navigation is to have airplanes approach the airport in a very precise manner. Thus, they will not be changing these flight paths to accommodate complainers. The fact is that if you look at the old and new maps, the "highways" are where the vast majority of the planes flew before, they are just eliminating some of the minor flightways.

6
3
rlundl02Nov. 16, 12 8:57 AM

Move the airport...====== Sure, let's go out in that forest where all those Money Trees grow. Get a few truckloads and build a new airport.

7
1
virusdotexeNov. 16, 1210:00 AM

Raising the money to move the airport should start with the MAC which is funded by airport fees. Real estate prices are at historic lows so now is the time to do it. Delta/MAC is proposing we spend $1.5 billion to upgrade terminal one at our old airport that is in a horrible location (nestled in the most densely populated part of the state). Why not put those funds toward building the airport where it belongs, a safe distance away from the most densely populated parts of the state. The only reason we are stuck with the inadequate (which MAC and Delta will themselves admit)and poorly located airport is because for years the legislature avoided building a new larger airport because a certain local airline did not want it for selfish reasons. That local airline is now a distant memory so it is time to get on with some much needed progress. Build an adequate and modern airport in the exurbs, spur development in that area, create jobs, bring new airline competition to the market and increase property values and tax revenue all over the Twin Cities by reducing the blight of extreme jet noise over densely populated urban areas. Many other major cities throughout the country made this smart move long ago. It is time for the Twin Cities to jump into the 21st century and build a modern airport rather than continuing to limp and dump money into an airport that is an extreme nuisance to tens of thousands of people.

4
9

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT