The significance of adding 351 feet

to get the runway to 5,001 feet

From the beginning there is has been a lot of confusion and misleading information as to why the airport wants to increase the runway to 5,001 feet and it took us a while to find some of all the facts. It soon became apparent the main reason why they want to increase the runway length was to expand the capacity of the airport to cater to and accommodate more of the private luxury jets. 5,001 ft. accommodates the private luxury jets like the size of the (2) current Falcon 2000 based in Plymouth, by easing up on the current 30% maximum capacity restrictions or ‘payload %’ for these jets and could allow these jets to increase payload up to 50%-60% with the extension. Currently it is not practical for these jets to consistently use our airport with these current restrictions.

There is a link to the Plymouth Airport Master Plan update where you can see the stated facts for yourself. We’ve tried to summarize here, but it’s a lot of information to digest!

  • 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”

  • The airport commission recently designated the FALCON 2000 as the ‘CRITICAL AIRCRAFT’ yet it only contributes to 1.80% of the total operations of PYM. It has up to 19 seats.

  • In the Plymouth Airport Master Plan Update 2022;

  • 3.6 Charter Service Assumptions (Page 39) Several charter operators conduct regular operations at Plymouth Municipal Airport. Nationwide operators including NetJets and Wheels Up contribute to the transient charter traffic and account for approximately 40% of these operations. One owner, “Professional Airways”, a charter operator based at PYM currently owns and operates two Falcon 2000’s a Hawker 1000, a Hawker 4000, and Falcon 900EX. Each of these are B category aircraft with the Falcons and Hawker 4000 listed as B-II. Annually, Professional Airways accounts for approximately 250 of the airport’s B-II operations with their owned and operated aircraft.

  • Table 3-9: Summary of Baseline Data - Operations by FAA Grouping (Table 3-7)

  • AAC/ADG (B-II) Operations (1,122) % Total Operations (1.80%)

  • 5.2 Alternative 1— No-Build Alternative (Page 52)

  • Air Safety Runway 6/24 currently meets all FAA safety requirements in accordance with AC 150/5300-13B. Although increasing the length of the runway pavement will in turn increase safety margins for the other smaller aircraft, the current runway length is not unsafe for aircraft adhering to capacity restrictions.

  • Ability to Serve the Critical Aircraft. “Alternative 1” does not change the current runway length and does not fulfill the minimum runway length requirement for the critical aircraft, the Falcon 2000. Though the critical aircraft operates regularly from PYM, they do so at reduced capacity. Therefore, Alternative 1 does not meet the project’s Purpose & Need.

  • Let’s start with the misleading term, to try and clarify, what it means by the statement “The runway expansion is being proposed for safety”.  Yes, adding runway length, any length increases safety, who can argue that!  It does not mean our current runways are unsafe, what is really means, adding runway length improves the safety margins to the current aircraft that follow their landing and take-off weight restrictions. In the Table below, you will see all the aircraft smaller than (the B-II) size aircraft like the Falcon 2000 already have large safety margins with the current runway length.

What does not make sense and the most bewildering thing of all, is increasing the runway length will not increase the safety margins for jets like the “Falcon 2000” because with the runway extension these jets will be allowed to carry more fuel and cargo, thus negating any increase safety margins. Nobody wants these jets to carry almost twice as much fuel flying over our back yards! How does this make sense to anyone? These jets are capable of carrying up to, approximately 17,000lbs. of fuel).

They are not saying larger jets than the current “B-II” will be able to come with the runway expansion. They are proposing that increasing the runway length will allow more of the super mid-size private jet activity like the (2) falcon 2000 already here. 

Technical Master Plan Update & Environmental Assessment Phase

  • Alternative 2 - (the proposed alternative that they are pursuing (page 77). Get the airport to a runway length that the Falcon 2000 could use up to 60% of its load. To do this there would be some changes to the taxiways and the relocation of a couple of navigational aids, and there would be no penetrations an no impacts to properties off the airport. That length would be 5001 feet.

Why 5,001 feet (our questions & understanding of research)

  • Our airport does not have a control tower and currently holds the distinction of the being the busiest non-towered airport in the state, with more operations – take-offs and landings – than some towered airports as stated by airport Commissioner Hurly.

  • Our concern has always been, who truly believes by 2031, jet activity will only increase by 5 jets per week if the runway is extended, as stated in the Plymouth Airport Master Plan?

  • Where are the specific studies of the increase in corporate/private jet activity after an airport expands to a 5000 ft runway?

  • Where are the environmental impact studies using realistic numbers of the true actual corporate/private jet activity when a runway goes over 5,000 feet?

  • Airport Manager, Matt Cardillo’s agenda has been to increase charter jet activity by increasing the runway as he stated in his 1st interview after being hired in 2022.   https://capeplymouthbusiness.com/new-manager-takes-flight-at-plymouth-municipal-airport/.

  • Matt’s agenda is to increase fuel sales and fees with more super-midsize jets as stated in the Plymouth Airport Master Plan, regardless to the impact to the residents.

  • These super-midsize corporate/private jets do not typically come to Plymouth because it is not practical because of their current extreme restricted weight capacities, which limits their ability to carry passengers, luggage, cargo and required fuel because of the current runway length.

  •  As Matt Cardillo stated in the “9/11/2024 Plymouth Advisory & Finance Meeting”, “A LOT OF” insurance companies require a 5000 ft runway or greater for these corporate/private jets to use an airport. So they are typically not allowed to land here.  And the ones that do, have the highly restricted 30% maximum payload capacity, which makes it impractical to land and take-off here!

  •  With the runway extension, Jets will be able to travel to further & different destinations with the increased fuel and weight capacities and that will increase new jet activity.

  • With the runway extension, Jets will be able to come from further destinations with the increased fuel and weight capacities and that will increase new jet activity.

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

  • 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.”

  • With the additional 351 ft, we will be turning on the “Open for Business” sign for the luxury jets, and this will increase the jet activity.

  • There are currently (5) known new proposed hangers (3) of which is in the permit phase and (2) additional future hangars once the runway is extended as stated in the Plymouth Airport Master plan could accommodate more of these private jets to be based here.  We have not been able to find out what the actual total capacity and potential for parking and/or storing private luxury jets.

  • Airports all around us are having similar issues both environmental and no place to store or park these luxury jets. Just look at Hanscom airfield. Currently there is an environmental hold on building more hangers that could house up to 80 of these private jets, Plymouth is only minutes away in a jet!

  •  Yes, it currently would be a safety issue for these (2) falcon 2000 jets to carry more than 30% payload with the current length limitations. When and who allowed them here in the 1st place with these extreme landing and take-off restrictions?

  • Yes, in theory, a byproduct of increasing runway length to accommodate the private jets will be that the smaller aircraft will have additional increased safety margins with a longer runway, but at what cost?

  • With more jets flying in an out of the airport how does it make it safer for the recreational smaller, slower, single prop aircraft?

  •  With more jets flying in an out of the airport, how does it make it safer for the training school students, including teen-agers, learning how to fly in the smaller, slower, single prop aircraft while performing their repetitive circling of the airport with landings and take offs?

  • How does it make it safer for the 98% of all the other smaller aircraft with more jets flying in and out of the airport , especially without a manned control tower?

  • How does that sound safer for any of our backyards or our environment?

  • 5,001 ft is all about trying to increase the private luxury jet activity!

  • Link to the Final_Plymouth_Airport_Master_Plan

5.2 Alternative 1— No-Build Alternative

  • A no-build scenario is one in which an airport does nothing and the PYM remains the same. In this context, the runway length of 4,650-ft would remain the same and PYM would continue to operate in the way it currently does, serving the same or similar aircraft at reduced capacities.

  • Alternative 1 (Figure 5-1) involves no property acquisitions, no obstruction removal, does not require the attainment of any easements, and is generally described as follows:

  • Runway 6-24 remains at a length of 4,650-ft.

  • Plymouth Airport continues to remain a B-II airport, serving primarily aircraft in Airplane Design Groups (ADG) A and B.

  • Air Safety - Runway 6/24 currently meets all FAA safety requirements in accordance with AC 150/5300-13B. Although increasing the length of the runway pavement will in turn increase safety margins, the current runway length is not unsafe for aircraft adhering to capacity restrictions.

  • Ability to Serve the Critical Aircraft. Alternative 1 does not change the current runway length and does not fulfill the minimum runway length requirement for the critical aircraft, the Falcon 2000. Though the critical aircraft operates regularly from PYM, they do so at reduced capacity. Therefore, Alternative 1 does not meet the project’s Purpose & Need.

  • No extension is required by the FAA.

Read the facts for yourself;