Hawaii Aviation Forums Aviation Legistation Second DOTA meeting with Honolulu South Ramp Tenants

Viewing 5 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • H. Gert
      Participant
      Post count: 4

      DOTA invited stakeholder groups to a meeting on January 28, 2020, to discuss utilization of the south ramp of Honolulu airport and redevelopment and future assignment of space.

      The consultants contracted by the DOT presented a conceptual “preferred alternative” to the current utilization to accommodate the projected growth of general aviation (part 135 and part 91 operators), air cargo, and airport/aviation maintenance operations for the next 20 years. Cargo operations are projected to need three times as much space as present, general aviation about twice as much, and maintenance operations including repair facilities, security and fire fighting facilities are considered ‘flat’. The consultants used accepted available industry metrics to arrive at these projections.

      The HDOT and their contractors, emphasized that total projected needs can be matched to the available south ramp space, with some modifications to airport infrastructure, including aircraft movement areas. The “preferred alternative” plan necessitates the realignment of “Taxiway Charlie”, the elimination of taxiway RB, and the construction of a new taxiway in its place. These realignments generate more available space on the Ewa side of the ramp. Under this plan air cargo operators would occupy a contiguous area on the west side of the south ramp, effectively displacing the T-hangars and GA ramp parking, which would be relocated to the Diamond Head end of the ramp. Part of the airport/aviation support facilities could be moved to the Kalewa subdivision, involving realignment of Lagoon Drive and the airport service road. Significantly, it was proposed to use floating docks moored along Lagoon Drive (Sea Lane 04) to accommodate helicopters during daylight operations. While this plan does not shortchange any of the current stakeholders at face value, the devil will be in the details in implementing this proposal. The audience commented on the problems of moving everyone to their ultimate location without interruption to operations and business. Everyone at the meeting recognized that implementing this plan is analogous to a Tetris game. I predict that the implementation strategy will eliminate the T-hangars first and we should pay close attention to what the plans are for small aircraft parking and hangar space if this proposal is enacted.

      Additional meetings with individual stakeholder groups (air cargo, GA, helicopter ops) are planned for late February to discuss details of the “preferred alternative” plan and its implementation.  It is interesting that these groups will be addressed individually. It is also significant that a redevelopment of PHJR was never considered as part of a larger Master plan. According to the consultants, this was not considered since the space needs can be fulfilled by re-configuring the south ramp. The topic of how this alternative would be financed is also obscure.

      Stay tuned.

    • Mathieu
      Participant
      Post count: 2

      Thanks for the great Synopsis!

    • Claudio Friederich
      Participant
      Post count: 11

      While I find the plan disturbing in many ways, the way these meetings are being conducted is disturbing in and of itself.  The distribution list of the e-mail from dota announcing the meeting listed the hangar tenants only.  The tenants with only tie-downs were not notified at all.  As tie-down tenants we have a much smaller financial stake in all this, and seating is limited, etc., I accept that.  But not informing us at all?  The south ramp tie-down tenants would be displaced along with everyone else.  Doesn’t that give us the right to be informed?  I only know of this plan through an acquaintance who has a hangar, and was invited, who mentioned the meeting to me in conversation at an unrelated gathering, and kindly forwarded me the plans he had been sent, and now, through this post.  The follow-up meeting is supposedly on Wed. Feb. 25, but I have no idea whether if I show up, dota will even let me in the door, or turn me away with no parking validation, since I was never “invited” to these meetings.  Does anybody know?

      As to the plan itself, I highly question the motivations for the plan.  The consultants may have used “industry-standard methodologies”, but were they informed of dota’s customary behavior?  Dota seems to do everything in its power to make ga feel unwelcome, and we went from a waiting list to a 40 some % vacancy in a few years, everybody leaving in droves, and the plan cites a doubling of ga demand?  A tripling of cargo demand?  According to people who have been flying already when I was in diapers, there is no unfulfilled demand for cargo in the islands.  We don’t need a doubling of the space, we need the space we have to be maintained properly, and for the hangar roofs not to leak, and to be charged equitable rents under fair terms.  The rail is 5+ years behind schedule, and 5+ billion over budget.  That does not inspire confidence for a project as large as proposed for the south ramp.  During the project, the displaced tenants will go where, for years longer than planned?  Awesome, how can I sign up?

    • Claudio Friederich
      Participant
      Post count: 11

      Sorry guys, couldn’t attach the plan.  Too large for the system.

    • Claudio Friederich
      Participant
      Post count: 11

      Further notes: I got in contact with Fisher, Agnes O (agnes.o.fisher@hawaii.gov), project manager.  He was under the impression that all tenants, including south ramp tenants, had been invited.  So, any tenant who is not aware of these plans was mistakenly left out when sending the meeting invitations.  The focus group meeting for the hangar (and presumably, tie-down tenants) is February 25, Tuesday, at 6 pm-7 pm, at 6 pm-7 pm, at the 7th floor conference center.  I urge all tenants to attend who are able.  I also advised Agnes Fisher to get in contact with GACH to reach any who should have been invited but were not sent the information.

    • H. Gert
      Participant
      Post count: 4

      I also contacted Agnes to ask if it was OK to post the invitation on social media or share it with this forum since I suspected that the invitee list was comprised of only those who signed in at the first meeting. She asked me in no uncertain terms that these invitations are not to be shared on social media or otherwise (with reference to a non-disclosure statement at the end of the message to me). On the other hand she encouraged me to direct interested parties to contact her so they could be assigned to one of the ‘groups’ that have separate meetings.

      The confusing part is that I received an invitation at a different time on that day targeted to “Small fixed-wing tenants”. Apparently, there is a different focus group of “T-hangar tenants”.

      Note that I am neither mentioning the date or the times of these meetings to comply with the DOTA request not to disseminate this information.  I encourage those of you who have received an invitation to any of these sub-group meetings to share what you will learn.

       

Viewing 5 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.