My Fellow Plymouth Residents,

Plymouth Municipal Airport holds the distinction of being the busiest non-towered airport in Massachusetts. Annual activity level is estimated at approximately 65,000 “aircraft movements,” according to the airport’s website.

What the Airport Commission (They) were saying about the runway extension:

o That increasing the length of the airport is all about improving safety to the current based aircraft.

o They kept going out of their way to explain the runways are limited to the size and the weights of the current aircraft that are currently there.

o They claim the added stop way/safety area is to be used for emergency overruns only and may not be used for takeoffs or landings.

o They claim the current runway thickness would not allow bigger or heavier aircraft with the increased runway length.

o They want the runway extension to better accommodate the (2) Falcon 2000 based at the airport (referred to as the Designed critical aircraft).

o They “anticipate” there “might” be a slight chance of future increase in jet activity.

What They were NOT saying about the runway extension:

o Increased runway length = More Jets.

o “Extending one of the airport’s two runways, would allow for an increase in the number of small charter jets “ is what Matt Cardillo stated in his interview with Cape Cod Business, when he became the Plymouth Airport Manager, approximately 2 years ago at the same time the Master Plan was being updated. Plymouthbusiness.com, Article By Bill O’Neill, New Manager Takes Flight at Plymouth Municipal Airport

o What the real reason is and what is behind and the significance of adding 351ft, not 300 ft. not 400 ft. but 351 ft. is…. I would like to quote from the “Massachusetts Statewide Airport System Plan (section 2-1)”.

“In the hopes to provide a significant value to business/corporate activity, as most corporate type of aircraft can operate in and out of airports having at least a 5,000-foot runway.”

o They want to disrupt the entire surrounding communities to accommodate the (2) Falcon 2000 jets and disregard what is in the best interest for the entire community.

o Currently these (2) Falcon 2000’s are too big for our current airport and the size of the runway limits them to only being able to carry 30% payload.

o Why 5,001 feet? And what is truly behind why the airport committee wants the airport extension is simple. They want to increase revenue related to increased jet activity and increased fuel sales, regardless of the negative impact or concern of the resident’s quality of life, real-estate values or the environment.

o It is mainly all about increasing the revenue from increased fuel sales and increased fees from more jets like the (2) Falcon 2000 jets that are currently based in Plymouth. (Critical aircraft as they call it).

o With a minimum length of 5,000 ft., it puts us into a different category of airports and Plymouth would show up to aviators on a new list of maps, charts and apps that we previously weren’t on and will increase new jet activity.”

o They want it turned into a runway over 5,000-ft like Hyannis, New Bedford, Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard & Hanscom airports to entice the large private, corporate, commuter, air taxis & business jets around the world like the (2) Falcon 2000 size jets.

o The 351-ft extension increases the total runway length of Runway 6/24 to 5,001-ft allowing current aircraft like the Falcon 2000 to carry a higher payload, including more fuel which would lead to higher revenue for the airport as stated in Section 5-3 in the Plymouth Airport Master Plan.

o It will allow this larger current class of Jets like the Falcon 2000 to carry more payload and fuel.

o They want jets to be able to carry more fuel taking-off and landing over our back yards.

o Jets will be able to travel to further & different destinations with additional fuel capacity and that will increase new jet activity.

o Jets will be able to come from further destinations and refuel with the increased additional refuel capacity and that will increase new jet activity.

o When taking off, Jet noise levels will increase and be louder with longer duration with heavier Jets carrying more payload.

o They would like to add a Fuel Kiosk for after hour refueling and becoming a 24-hour refueling station, which will add more jets in the middle of the night.

o With the proposal extension, runway 6\24 will become the runway of choice for turbine powered aircraft like the Falcon 2000.

o Runway 6/24 effects the majority of all homes of all the “Noise Sensitive Zones” combined. Runway 6/24 residents will take the brunt of more jet activity.

o Where are the Plymouth historical studies for the volume of jet operations over the years?

o How will the number of jet operations be affected with a longer runway?

o Where are the national historical studies of increase in jet traffic when airport runways went to runways over 5,000 ft.?

o Where are the studies of the projected increase of more of the larger jets like the Falcon 2000 coming to Plymouth for service at the maintenance facility?

o What are the adverse effects to the safety of our airport and surrounding communities with the increase in jet traffic?

o What will the adverse environmental aspects be with the increase in jet traffic?

o How will jets carrying more fuel be safer for anyone?

o How does a longer runway allow heavier Jets, carrying more fuel, to take off & land with the same safety margins?

o How are jets being able to carry more fuel, “just a byproduct of the runway expansion safety project” as Mr. Fosdick claims?

o If the added 351 ft. stop way/safety area is only to be used for emergency overruns and may not be used for takeoffs or landings, as they claim, how does it allow jets to carry more fuel?

o How does the increase in jet activity and jets carrying more fuel in the best interest to any resident or safer for anyone that lives in Plymouth and Carver?

o What will the adverse effects be to our aquifer if there is an accident with one of these jets carrying more fuel?

o Fire retardants have PFAS and will affect the aquifer if there is an accident. The likelihood increases with more jet activity.

o Our Plymouth airport does not have a manned control tower and is basically a ‘Free for All’ and it is the responsibility of each individual aircraft when it comes to the safety of all the aircraft coming and going and flying over our heads.

o Airport manager claims they have no control, once planes are in the air, they say it is in the FAA jurisdiction at that point.

o With more jets flying in an out of the airport it will not be safer for the recreational smaller, slower, single prop aircraft.

o With more jets flying in an out of the airport it will not be safer for the training school students, flying in the smaller, slower, single prop aircraft whose activity has been increasing over the last few years.

o With more jets flying in an out of the airport it will not be safer for the training school students, learning how to fly in the smaller, slower, single prop aircraft while performing their repetitive circling of the airport with landings and take offs.

o With more jets flying in an out of the airport it will not be safer for our teen-age students learning to fly at the flight schools in the smaller, slower single prop aircraft.

o Help us understand the details of the runway expansion.

o The only item out of compliance per the FAA are Taxiway conditions per Section 4.3.2 of the Plymouth Airport Master Plan.

o How is increasing the length of the runway by 351 ft. “not changing the size of the runway” as Mr. Fosdick mentioned in the Selectmen’s Board meeting?

o By adding 351 ft. to a 4,655 ft. runway and then classifying it to be a 5,001 ft. runway sounds like it is a longer runway, and it sounds like they are increasing the size despite Mr. Fosdick saying they are not increasing the size!

o What are the details of the total reconstruction of runway 24 listed for 2026 and will that allow heaver planes?

o Were financial studies done of projected revenue increases associated to the increase in fuel sales & fees compared to the offset by the loss of revenue with the decrease in real estate taxes from depreciation, as a result of more of these larger class jets, like the Falcon 2000 flying over our neighborhoods?

o Why would they want to start progressing backwards in their harmonic approach to the community by reducing the flexibility of using either runway to reduce the impact on the noise sensitive areas?

o Why wasn’t 15\33 runway proposed to be the best choice in having the least impact to homes in the “Noise Sensitive Zones.”?

o Wouldn’t it be prudent to focus on how to make runway 15\33 the main runway of choice?

o Where are the Air Quality studies?

o Where are the studies to the impact to the children in the South Shore Early Childhood center and other businesses at ground zero, when the jets take off on runway 6/24?

o Where are the studies on the impact to Wetlands?

o Where are the Impact studies related to contamination to ground water (sole source Aquifer) from the residual aircraft fumes?

o They want it to be over 5,000 feet to put it in a class of runways in the hopes to provide a significant value to business/corporate activity, as most corporate type of aircraft can operate in and out of airports having at least a 5,000-foot runway. It is simply about the money. It’s all about wanting to increase jet activity.

o Who is accountable for the misrepresentation about the facts and misleading details of what is really behind why they want to extend the runway by 351 ft.?

o How did we get here? We got here because of the lack of transparency and honesty and lack of communication by the airport committee.

o They never really tried reaching out to the communities surrounding the airport, not even by the US mail.

We expect all of our town members, including the residents, to act ethically, honestly and transparently. The airport members should be held accountable for how they handled all of this and how they have conducted themselves.

How did the airport committee members get selected.

Well, this is our airport, we do have a say. The airport is our hometown airport. We are in control of our destiny, at least we should be.

This decision will change all of our lives in Plymouth forever and it should not be in the hands of a few people in a back room at the airport. This decision is not voting for something for the coming year. This decision is voting on the rest of our lives, our kid’s lives, our grandkids lives. This decision is voting on what we want Plymouth to be known for.

Do we want the flood gates to open and let the world fly over our heads and land in our back yards? There will be no going back if the expansion is allowed. Don’t wait until it is too late. Let us not take one step closer to being the next Hanscom Field airport.

Please read the following article: Boston Herald Opinion Collins: Developers greenwashing private jet expansion. https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/05/04/collins-developers-greenwashing-private-jet-expansion/

When is enough, enough…

Just say NO to heavier & more Jets!