Another bridge crossed. Now the provincial gov't will likely kick in 11 million as they were probably waiting for a move by the feds.
It is a real beginning!
I expect a lot of good will be the end result of this project going forward.
Should get Prince George on the map.
I am all for it.

Congratulations to the Prince George Airport Authority for bringing the business plan om place to receive attention of the respective governments and helping diversify the economy

Positive comments on this board ???? Wow...there is hope for us all yet. Great news for PG today.

I agree a positive development and announcement for a change. Its nice to see IMO.

So where did all the negative people go.... to proud to eat a little crow...*LOL*...
Maybe this means a lot of those projects will go ahead now.... CN will proabbly make a comnitment now...they never like to be first.... Looks good to me...Will be interesting to follow....

Congrats to the airport authority. I think this will be a good investment, as I have posted on here before. :-)

How about the pollution? I hear air traffic is one of the worst!

OK folks here we go.

(1) These are political announcements with politicians giving money prior to elections etc;

(2) Some previous statements about the Airport.

(a) Economic Impact study 300 Jobs would be created, payroll of $15.8 Million

(b) Airport Management statement. 1500 Cargo flights per year over a 20 year period to make expansion economically viable. 1500 flights will contribute 12 Million to the local GDP and create 200 Jobs.

(c) Gary Lunn Minister of Natural Resources to-day. *The runway expansion has a real potential of creating at least 400 good paying jobs.

Matter of interest. 1000 ft expansion to the Prince George main runway 14-32 in 1975 cost $1.7 Million. 4000ft expansion in 2006 will cost $33 Million. 25 Million more than in 1975 for equal footage. $1700.00 per foot in 1975, $8250.00 per foot in 2007. (Anything wrong with this picture)

The objective of the expansion is to tap into growing Air Cargo Industry between Asia and North America. Current refuelling hub for Air Cargo is Anchorage Alaska. Anchorage Alaska presently has 700 wide body cargo flights per week. Intends to build a new runway if and when necessary, and does Not, repeat does Not have a fuel or congestion problem. Prince George Airport hopes to peel off 10% of this business.

EXAMPLE::
Route Tokyo/Anchorage/New York
Tokyo to Anchorage 3458 miles
Anchorage to NY 3385 Miles.
Total 6843 Miles.

Route Tokyo/Vancouver/New York
Tokyo to Vancouver 4701 miles
Vancouver to New York 2449 miles
Total 7150 Miles.

The flight to Vancouver is 2 hours longer than Anchorage which requires the carrier to carry a larger fuel load and a reduced cargo load. The same would apply to Prince George.

Statement by Airport Manager. This project is a money maker with just less that 30 refuelling stops a week over a 20 year period.

Story in local paper Dec 13,2005.
**FedEx denies Prince George link**
Karen Cooper a spokesperson for FedEx;s Canadian operations, said the company has no interest in setting up a centre in Prince George even if the runway was extended. "From where we are now for logistics and capacity, FedEx goes via Anchorage, there is no intention of switching" she said. "It seems a bit of a stretch for us" In fact, said Cooper FedEx has purchased a fleet of AirBus 380-800F cargo jets that dont need a stopover en route across the pacific. The first 10 Planes will be in FedEx's hand in August 2008.

Things to keep in mind.
(1) The Airport is owned by the Federal Government and leased to the Airport Authority for 60 years, with a proviso for an extension.

Funding.
The first 11 Million was channeled from the BC Government to the Northern Trust and then loaned by the NTI to the Airport Authority. This is the first stupid move, as we now have Provincial Tax Dollars being loaned through an Airport Improvement Society to make improvements to a Federal Airport.

The Second 11 Million came from the Federal Government (Who owns the Airport) and given to the Airport Authority to make improvements to its own Airport. This 11 Million comes out of the Beetle Kill fund of **supposedly** 100 Million per year.

The third 11 Million is supposedly going to come from the Provincial Government, and if it does we will then have a situation where a Provincial Government is giving money to a Airport Authority for improvement to a Federally owned Airport.

The 11 Million from the Northern Trust is to be paid back at interest at the rate of inflation in 5 years. The pay back money will probably come from airport improvement fees of $1.6 Million per year, which means they will be short 3 Million and will no doubt ask for the balance to be forgiven. **The Airport made a profit in 2005 of $40,000.00** Somewhat less than most people who post on this site.

If we average the different statements on the amount of jobs that will be created we get 300. If this project is going to be successful after 20 years at approx 30 refuelling stops per week, then we are looking at something in the tune of 15 jobs per year, assuming a gradual increase each year for 20 years.

Some people may think this is the **Dawn of a new era**, however I suggest to you it is no more than sweet talking politicians, working through Airport Authoritys, and Northern Trust Initiatives, groups to give the impression that they are doing something positive in this area because of the coming problems as a result of the Beetle Kill.

They know full well that most of us will be long gone before anyone has to take any responsibility for this fiasco.

The $33 Million could have, and should have been spent on something that was more of a sure thing than this ill conceived plan. As much as I am against gambling, even a fool knows that if we had built another Casino somewhere in the area we would have made profits and created jobs immediately, and not have had to wait for 20 years for a return on investment.

Enjoy your short lived exurberance.

"Matter of interest. 1000 ft expansion to the Prince George main runway 14-32 in 1975 cost $1.7 Million. 4000ft expansion in 2006 will cost $33 Million. 25 Million more than in 1975 for equal footage. $1700.00 per foot in 1975, $8250.00 per foot in 2007. (Anything wrong with this picture)"

Yup, you do not understand the design of runways is likely the key thing wrong with this picture.

The runway will not only have to have an extension to it, but will likely have to have increased concrete depth over its existing length. Runway pavement thickness is based on the load from aircraft which include touch down impact plus frequency of flights. For all I know, it will even have to be increased in width.

I would assume that the existing runway is not designed to take a fully loaded 747 or aircraft of similar size. So, the total weight of the aircraft plus the number of wheels determine the impact force on the concrete.

They will also have fun paving the existing runway while air traffic continues to use the runway. The east west runway can only be used when there are no cross winds. So, I would think that they will have to assume the east west runway cannot be counted on. I assume such logistics make reconstruction of an existing runway quite expensive.

I do not know how the $33 million or so is to be distributed, but I will assume a small amount will go for a few bottles of champagne to celebrate, as well it should.

I do not expect much to happen soon, but would not be surprised if it did within the next couple of years based either completley or in part on having that capacity at the airport.

The wonders of Google earth ...

The north south runway in PG is about 150 feet wide and 7,500 long.

The runway in Kelowna is roughly the same length but 200 feet wide, which is the same width as the runways in Vancouver.

of possible interest to some who want to read some of the considerations when designing a runway, especially one which already exists.
http://www.cement.org/pavements/pv_cp_airports.asp

"They know full well that most of us will be long gone before anyone has to take any responsibility for this fiasco."

Do they? I was and still am here for the Mirabelle and the Pickering fiasco .......

I think a new airport in Pickering would have been better than expanding Pearson.

This one is peanuts if this will be a fiasco ... I doubt it will be since it is still an airport and they will get a runway upgrade which is likely required anyway.

Air traffic contributes little to local pollution. The main effect of air pollution from aircraft is in the upper atmosphere.

In high traffic areas such as major hubs, contribution to local air pollution is more significant than it would be here. The main pollution is typically noise.

I grew up in a house which is 6 km from the end of the east-west runway at the Ottawa airport. Depending on wind patterns we would see the wheels of the planes as they flew directly overhead to land or take-off. The noise was so loud we would have to stop talking for about a minute. The closest residences were about 1.5 km from the end of the runway.

I agree that the runway will be built at a cost of $33 Million and I agree that you could make a case that it is probably needed to some extent.

I disagree that as a result of the Runway Extension we will attract huge cargo jets to the Prince George area.

Reasons:
(1) Air Cargo Carriers are presently using the Great Circle Route via Anchorage Alaska.

(2) FedEx is already on record as stating they are not interested in coming through Prince George even if the Runway is extended.

(3) There was never any suggestion of wide body Cargo jets landing in Prince George until the establishment of the Airport Authority, even though we have had an Aiport here since 1928. The Airport Authority has a vested interest in Airport Improvements as is must spend Airport Improvement Fees or reduce or cancel them.

(4) This venture is being considered at the same time that Air Cargo Carriers are purchasing wide body A380 800F cargo jets that have more capacity for cargo and can travel longer distances without refueling, which means (in my opinion) there would be no need to stop in Prince George and maybe somewhat less need to stop in Anchorage.

(5) The concept of *Build it and they will come* may be a somewhat romantic concept when related to baseball fields and high profile actors, however this concept has no basis as a good business venture.

(6) Other International Airports especially those who have been handling Planes and Cargo for years will not let any of their business go easily, and therefore the Airlines may use the possibility of going through Prince George as a bargaining chip to get cheaper rates, however I suspect they will not actually split their operations.

I think Stieg knows his business.

Wow, I sure enjoyed reading your posts Palopu !
Very meaty articles indeed, and probably a good manner of truth in them. Whenever politicians are smiling, we should be wary.

Anyway, it sure beats reading someones relentless post after post of "Here is my personal experience, therefore it should be the case for absolutely everyone". Or, "Here is my opinion based on various amounts of rubble I found on the internet with any manner of search engine".

Lord knows, everything you find on google, is certified absolutely truthful and accurate.

BTW: Be careful or this message will erase your hard drive and cause your car to break down !

;-)

Wonder why so many are so willing to "look a gift horse in the mouth?"
And I wonder how those same people will wonder why a "spit in the eye" will be bestowed upon them further down the road when a substantial investment could be in the offing?
Nobody ever thinks to give thanks for anything.
If it takes time for cargo flights to be established in Prince George--so it takes time.
When one opens a business is it a foregone conclusion everyone will jump to deal there, or do we have our old faithfuls who remain just that-old faithfuls to the business they originally dealth with for the same offered service?
I am thankful I managed to keep my head above water during the mind boggling years of wondering just how to do it. The downturn in the city hit many people like a sack of hammers. Were we all prepared? No, I do not think so.
Now there appears to be a light at the end of the tunnel. For those of us who survived the bad, maybe we can now look forward to better times.
If any major investments are on the horizon, bring them on.
And to even suggest another casino is sheer foolishness. That is a sure fire way to relieve residents of their money, and create many problems for society as a whole.
This runway expansion may be the rainbow to lead the entire city to not just a pot of gold, but many. Hope springs eternal!

"Wow, I sure enjoyed reading your posts Palopu !
Very meaty articles indeed"

I think in the above case the meat has been predigested and dropped into a patty on the range and you just stepped in it.

;-)

Meaty articles, eh?

How about this one, for example.

"(5) The concept of *Build it and they will come* may be a somewhat romantic concept when related to baseball fields and high profile actors, however this concept has no basis as a good business venture."

I think Palopu has never been to Las Vagas. Oops, sorry to introduce my personal experience to those who prefer nonsensical statements.

Vegas is Vegas, you can't compare it to anything. That's WHY they come to it.

I think the point you quoted from Palopu has a lot of merit to it, and the argument you presented against it is meatless.

I wasn't against the airport expansion at first, but now your comments have me extremely suspicious of the whole deal. I wonder why you're waving the flag so hard ?

Prince George my freind is no Las Vegas. If you would think for a moment when Las Vegas was built there was no legalized gambling anywhere else in the US or in North America for that matter, in addition it was heavly finianced by organized crime. (At least in the beginning) For you to compare the Casinos of Las Vegas who had a monoply on gambling in the USA to Airports in North America where there are literally thousands and who are highly competitive shows that you are giving very little or no thought to the discussion. The Gambling Casinos on the East Coast are having difficulty making money, and that is because of the competition that came along years after Las Vegas was established.

What we have here is a bunch of Johnny Come Latelys, who think that all they have to do is build an extension to an Airport Runway with Taxpayers dollars, make a few phone calls and **Walla** we have a **Northern Success Story** NOT bloody likely.

As usual most people have ignored my reasons or suggestions why I feel that it probably wont work, and continue to think that it will because they want it to. Not in the real world. Not one person on this post would but one red cent of theie own money into this venture, however as usual they have no problem throwing away tax dollars.

We have to many people watching to many movies and cartoons and to few people looking at the facts. Lets get away from the **Little Red Engine that could** **Rocky 1,2,3,4,5,6,** **Build it and they will come** mentality and think and do someting progressive.

This money could have been spent or loaned to entrepreaners to set up mobile sawmills in beetle infested areas and logged off all this beetle kill, and sold the lumber if necessary at cost to recoup our money, however the Large Lumber Co., and the Large Unions dont want anyone in the bush except themselves. So we can scrap that idea. Its not likely that you would get any support from the Government> I have never heard them make any suggestions on how this money should be spent. If we cant find ways to utilize it they will keep it.

I suggest that a major part of this pine beetle will rot in the bush, or burn.

Who has some good ideas about how to spend beetle money? I agree that tourism would be one and could over time be a great asset to this area. However someone has to take the lead on these ideas.

Lets hear something besides a 20 year plan for any Airport Expansion that may or may not produce any business.

"Prince George my freind is no Las Vegas."

Who sid it was? Do you guys not read?

You spoke in generalities about the statement of "build it and they will come." I simply said there are some very good examples in the world where that is true and used one of the simplest ones.

Who the hell would ever have thought that there are idiots who want to go to a desert for a vacation? Obviously some did. And those who would have posted against it on a blog like this would have been the idiots for not believing it was possible.

"As usual most people have ignored my reasons or suggestions why I feel that it probably wont work, and continue to think that it will because they want it to."

So tell you what. What would you put $33 million into in this region to maintain or build up the economy?

Give us a chance, oh God Palopu, to laugh at your ridiculous ideas as well.

"This money could have been spent or loaned to entrepreaners to set up mobile sawmills in beetle infested areas and logged off all this beetle kill, and sold the lumber if necessary at cost to recoup our money."

Okay. So who is going to buy the lumber that is "dead"?

Let me see. I give someone $100,000. That individual goes into the woods and cuts down trees, plants new trees in their place, and takes care of them until they are free to grow. After taking out the money for a wage and other costs, paying stumpage to government, and paying back the "loan" how much is that individual going to have to get for the wood? I suggest a considerable amount more than a large licensee.

You are proposing a system which lobbied the USA government to put duties on Canadian lumber for unfair trade practices.

Besides, in your scenario the government is the entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs assume the risk for business ventures. Your guys with the small sawmills take no risk. They collect a paycheck and if they don't get the money they need from the wood, they chalk it up to experience and declare bankruptcy.

Palopu, I agree with all the points you make on the airport, but count me in the 'little red engine that could' category on this one. Worste case scenario the run way doesn't disolve into the ground and we still have it 50-200 years from now when it eventually becomes viable. I would much rather see my tax dollars tied up in that kind of infrastructure than the waste of operating budgets or service give aways. At least it gives us hope. More hope than government priced marketing campaigns. At least it is a tangible asset.

On the leadership issue for the tourism industry, I could not agree more with you. I would love to take up that challange and I have a plan as soon as I can wrap up all the legal challanges and road blocks the provincial/federal government is funding against me in the form of VANOC lawsuits. If we could ever get over the fact they don't own the trademark rights to the year '2010' than I have an excellent plan to put foreward. I'd even take a substantial pay cut to advance it foreward under a non-profit set up.

Time Will Tell

"I suggest that a major part of this pine beetle will rot in the bush, or burn."

I suggest the same. As it should. To think that we could use that much wood that fast, God knows how much in inaccessible areas where we would have to use helicopters or build roads, is not reasonable. I do not think anyone in the business is even remote to proposing that.

"If we could ever get over the fact they don't own the trademark rights to the year '2010' than I have an excellent plan to put foreward"

I have seen you write about this before. Surely this is not stopping you from moving on. I think a major, unified push into tourism would be appropriate.

I do not mean to be negative about that, but on the face of it as an outsider it seems to be a hurdle you do not need to cross to continue on.

I just do not understand what is so important about "2010". People are coming here far beyond 2010 and they are not coming here because of 2010.

Surely they are coming here to recreate, to do whatever they like to do in wilderness settings and some new facilities which are "resort islands" within the surrounding wilderness.

I am sure you are familiar with this page:
http://www.vancouver2010.com/en/LookVancouver2010/ProtectingBrand/OlympicBrandFAQs

as well as this one http://www.vancouver2010.com/resources/PDFs/Official%20Marks.pdf

In the case of the number 2010 it would actually be a service as well as a trademark. If VANOC has protecte it, as it appears from those pages, good luck. One does not fool around with stuff relating to Olympics. Unless, of course, you were first and can prove it.

The again, I would not know the details so really should not comment other than the observsation that it seems to me, on the face of it, you may be best to move on since it sounds as if it may be dragging you down from what you want to achieve.

Owl. The statement *Prince George my friend is no Las Vegas* Was a take off on the famous quote **You my friend are no Jack Kennedy** directed at Dan Quayle. I guess you missed it.

I should have added the movie **Bugsy** with Warren Beatty to my list.

Now I will give you a little reading to do and maybe just maybe you will make the connection.

I give someone 33 Million dollars, that individual builds an Airport Expansion and maintains it for 20 years. After taking out money for wages and other costs, paying the Government leasing fees, and paying back part of the **loan**, how much is that individual going to get for the expansion to pay for the cost?

In this scenario the Government is the Entrepreneur, and also assumes all risks because if the venture fails the Airport reverts to the Government. In the meantime the proponents collect a healthy pay cheque and dont have to worry about going bankrupt.

Recognize anything in the above???

At this point I dont have any really good ideas on what to spend this money on that will give us some good private jobs (not Government) that will grow the community or the business base, and that is the problem. It appears that other than coming up with ideas on how to waste money we have no plans or vision. That may very well be why no money is forthcoming. What would we do with it? That is the question. Tourism on a large scale that encompasses a large area such as suggested by Chadermando has a lot of merit, and I am inclined to think that is an area that should be looked at. Other than that, at this point in time I am at a loss, however I still am not in favour of spending money just for the sake of appearing to do something.

We need to come up with comprehensive ideas, or we better start packing our bags and get ready to move on.

"Recognize anything in the above???"

Yes... I most certainly do. I recognize the fact that you do not understand the difference between making an investment in infrastructure which is required to move on into other businesses, and removing dead trees and selling them for next to nothing at the cost of the taxpayer. When they are gone, there is nothing left. There is no investment other than hanging on for another 5 years, 10 years .. whatever.

It appears you have no understanding of business and the role government plays in putting the conditions in place for business to take off by developing infrastructure of the scale private businesses cannot or will not do.

Your scenario subsidizes a single business category for a relatively short period. Provide the timber at no cost to whoever has a good business plan and let them figure it out.

And we had better do it soon or else every year later at the front end in getting the forest to grow again at an accelerated pace the longer it will be before we can priduce as much as we did in the last 10 years. We're talking 2060 or later here.

Owl. My scenario subsidizes a single business category for a relatively short period because a short period is all we have.

Your scenario takes place over a extended length of time because that is the only way the Airport Authority can spend the money, and gleen as much as possible through taxpayers and airline travellers. Mine at least has a definitive start and finish. Yours is nothing more than a thinly disguised ploy to exploit taxpayers.

Everyone in your scenario is a Government Politician or works for the Government in some way, stuffing a fat cheque in their pockets, and pretending to have a function when in fact they are not much more that Government employees out of control. Take away the Government money and you have nothing.

Owl, VANOC purports to have a trademark on the year 2010, but they do not. It is illegal in Canada to trademark a general use term such as the date, or a place in their singular term, therefore unless they have a specific trademark combining the year or place with another term, they have no trademark right.

The trademark '2010' that is published on the VANOC web site is a logo and not the date. It is a fancy type of lettering that spells 2010, no different then the five ring logo. They have already tried that argument, but the facts are my trademark supersedes all their trademarks by date first filled and used, therefore they filed after me a logo and are trying to say that logo gives them the rights to own the entire year and any other trademark that involves the year 2010.

By VANOC's argument if you want to have a tradeshow, hockey tournament, or even an arts fair in the year 2010 you will have to pay them rights to use that year in your event or organization promotional title. This argument over ownership of the date should not even be debated if it were not for our government dollars funding the legal belligerence of a multinational for profit organization that wishes to claim ownership to the year for profit on our tax dollars.

VANOC can claim ownership of the logo trademarks or terms for marketing that they trademarked and I have no problem with that. They can trademark Olympics, Vancouver Olympics, Vancouver 2010 Olympics, or any variation of that, but they can not trademark Vancouver in general, nor can they trademark Christmas Day, Spring, Winter, Summer, Fall, September 11th 2001, or even the year 2010. VANOC will use government dollars to tell you otherwise.

I fully understand your criticism Owl. Part of me says I won't be pushed around by a multinational that is wrong and violating my rights by threatening to sue if I defend my trademark, as well as road blocking me legally in the meantime, but that is only motivation and not the reason I defend my trademark.

I defend my trademark because of its value in galvanizing the correct perception of the strategy behind its meaning. That strategy is to use the year 2010 as a target date to optimize the benefits of a comprehensive push towards eco-tourism sector development in both services and infrastructure, as well as in brokerage opportunities in time to market to the tourists in 2010 which would be the target date and the grand opening of Eco-tourism on an organized scale throughout Northern BC. In raising awareness and funding for a project nothing builds an organization towards its goals as much as a clear and concise marketing trademark or branding as they call it. If people know that their funding is going towards organizing the industry and setting industry standards and practices as well as advocating for protections of specific areas or build out of things as simple as rest stops, parks and boat launches then they are more inclined to get involved.

I can not go into greater detail because they take my ideas and use them against me by piece-mealing them out to existing organizations that are empire builders and have no genuine interest in the greater strategy of a comprehensive plan for the industry. VANOC at one time offered to take what they thought of the idea and incorporate it into their plans for marketing tourism at Whistler run out of their Whistler office for the Vancouver-Victoria area. They saw no need in promoting Northern BC and for me that is the whole purpose behind the idea. They even went so far as to suggest they would use my trademark. Anyone who does not think they are our competitor for tourists is living to deep in the bush.

I am not stupid and I realize there are many stakeholders in any project like this who would love to take it over for their own benefit. If I do not have the money to fund it all on my own I have to have another source of leverage. I do not intend to have a corporate majority, but I do intend to hold the marketing trademark as an insurance that it would live up to its mission. The possibilities are fascinating when one thinks of the tie-in's one could make to a project like this one, and the worst would be to see that robbed by some opportunist out to steal someone else’s idea. Being in business I have experienced that before on a large scale and could be labelled over cautious a second time around.

Time Will Tell

PS I like the enthusiasm for the Stanley Park restoration. That is getting close to what I was thinking of for Northern BC. If we had 1/20th the funding they have we could get 20 times the results IMO.

"Take away the Government money and you have nothing."

That is what I was saying. No 33 million to "invest" in your "have portable sawmill, will travel" and these guys won't even be able to afford a portable sawmill.

Do you realize that Banks loan money? They loan it to businesses they think are viable. The less risk they take, the better the deal they can provide you with for the cost of money.

Governments give money or loan money with much greater risks attached. The risk is taken by the larger community from which the government takes taxes. It is a whole different game.

So, you want to buy a saw? Go to a bank to lend the money. You want to get at the forest which the government wants to make as productive as possible as soon as possible? They will build the road infrastructure for you.

You own the saw, the population at large, through the government, owns the road.

Simple. Governments in a free market society that dabble too much with subsidizing industry by buying them facilities or paying for their wages are asking for trouble.

I know what you mean about the trademark being the graphic 2010. In fact, when I read those two sites, it was relatively clear from the first that they do not intend to register the word or number 2010, but the graphic which they reference and link to.

There are, however, trademarks or service marks which are the numbers or words, and not just the styalized graphics of the same .....

4711 - the Cologne from Cologne, Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4711
501 - as in jeans. I believe 501 is actually registered. http://www.amazon.com/Levis-501-Button-Fly-Jeans/dp/B000184T0S
240Z - Datsun ... same thing I suspect.
747 - as with Datsun, no need to say Boeing.

In such cases context of the use is most important. So, a house is still allowed to be numbered 4711 or 501 .... but you could not name a perfume 4711, even if the graphic of the numeral would look different. Neither could Klein come up with a pair of slacks called 501, or even a shirt, I would think.

I think you have a tough case, government or not. I think it depends on the context.

Good luck ... I would go for 2011 and give yourself an extra years.

Or go with 2014 .. PG's centennial. Grab the number now anyway for a few dollars and associate it with PG and the Northern part of the province.

**Methinks he protests too much**

The whole discussion regarding beetle killed trees was to suggest some way of harvesting them before they are to far gone. Years ago as I recall Carrier Lumber was given large tracts of beetle killed trees to harvest in the Williams Lake area and were given a reduction in stumpage fees. They moved into beetle killed areas with portable sawmills and logged these trees for years. This was a very successful operation. They later ended up sueing the Provincial Government for Millions but that is a different story.

In any event a program such as the Carrier one would or could allow us to log off these trees before they rot. (Timeline 5 to 7 years depending on area).

As for the Airport Expansion you totally lost me along the way. As far as I am concerned it is as simple as this. This project is finianced by the different levels of Government, it is being run by people who were appointed by different levels of Government, these people are being paid by money generated by leasing a Government facility, and therefore they are working for the Government, through an *Authority*. It is a very convoluted way to build an Airport Extension, and could only have been dreamed up by Civil Servants.

If the Airport Extension attracts some new business, (Private) and allows some jobs to be created then this is a good thing. However if after 20 years we still have made no progress, and we are short 33 Million dollars then I suggest that it was a total waste of time and money. The good thing for the Airport Authority is that they have 20 years to prove themselves, and of course every Politician, and every employee,will probably have moved on and of course will be responsible for nothing. Such is the way of Politicians and Government employees.

Most on this post will not be there to see the end result.

My guess is that this extension will be used by Crows, Ravens, Ducks, Geese, Field Mice, Magpies and various and sundry wildlife.

Insofar as having problems building the extension goes, This Regional Airport has very few flights per day in and out. 11 to and from Vancouver, and the balance local planes, or whatever. To the best of my knowlege the last flight leaves around 10 or 11 Pm and the next flight arrives at about 7 the next morning. Between 11pm and 7Am all you have flying around are bats. This would give you 8 hours per night 7 days per week to work on the extension. So in effect there is no problem. You could check out the flights on their website, except for the fact it is closed until sometime in February.(The flight portion)

I long for the day when the first Container train arrives from Prince Rupert fully loaded for the American Midwest, and the first phase of the Airport expansion is done to coincide with it, so I can see what the *H* the connection is.

It will be a flag waving, sky writing, holiday spirit day, and we'll all turn out in our Sunday best to see what a great job we have done.

Or it could be like attending a funeral, rainy wet cold day, train in and out like a thief in the night, Airport Authority and their co-horts conspicous by thier absence. We hear the distant wail of the train whistle as it heads East to greener pastures, overhead at 15000 ft we see the Jet Stream of a wide body AC300 380F super cargo Jet on its way to Anchorage. We send him signals by semaphore asking him to land here, but he is to high in the air and he cant see us. OH will maybe next time.

I'm just glad we're back on topic and not talking about trademarks ???

I too, am still mulling over what connection there could be between the airport and container traffic. Maybe it's to accommodate wide body jets to fly home all the illegal refugees ??

We are talking about wood and lumber. Lumber has trademarks stamped on it. So trademarks are on topic. ;-)