@@alexibarra4675 True but if you take a full airliner and divide it by the average capacity and then take a Gulfstream or Bombardier and divide it by the few people that will be using it, the individual footprint is surely higher no? Not that I really care about this footprint stuff anyway
@@alexibarra4675 you're wrong about the carbon footprint, and it's quite simple. Bigger planes are more efficient because they take many people to destinations. "Commuter stop" is pointless, when you think about how active airlines are and how many numerous destinations there are. There is no argument WHATSOEVER that private planes create a smaller carbon footprint. Private jets just save the person time, not even money. It's terrible for the environment.
@@alexibarra4675 that's not how hub transit nor jet fuel consumption works. First off no airplane will divert to Aspin for fuel. None! It is not a hub built for the accommodation that could service more than eight jets which is its terminals max. Now as for the consumption being that Aspin is in a valley you will have to contend with heavy cross winds, ice, and snow all of which are dangerous for air liners. This forces them to only use the needed amount of fuel required to get to your destination and no more. This is for safety as excess fuel during an accident in a confined area can cause a larger incident. Now take into account how a single airliner with a minimum take off of 30 passengers is required to make a normal Southwest Airlines where as if those same thirty decided to go via a private Gulfstream. At min minimum you looking at 2 separate aircraft with a potential of 30 via this scenario that will expand the carbon footprint. It not a zero sum game when you do the math. Also, with the newer engines coming from Rolls-Royce, General Electric two of the largest suppliers of the industry; they are promising a 50% reduction in emissions and 25% reduction in fuel consumption. It has the industry buzzing and is why so many companies bought from Beoing. It was supposed to make alternate destinations more viable financially. All in all this is just a petty play by rich elites looking to maintain property values and exclusivity.
@alexibarra4675 's idea is that by restricting not so rich people to travel, we can reduce carbon footprint because now only rich few people can travel.
We were just here, for climbing the Maroon Bells, and you are so correct. A mecca for only "elites". You should see how they dress, just to go to the bar, to have a couple of drinks. Money oozing out of their pores.
Here to add to Wendover's annual correction video - at 3:43, they descend at a 6 degree glideslope, not a 6 percent glideslope - in actual fact, a 10.5 percent grade.
One thing that the residents of Aspen may not have considered is the very real possibility that the FAA ends the charter for the airport, effectively having it be closed permanently. This would certainly leave the area much quieter and with a much lower carbon footprint. Care should be taken where one treads.
@sir9integra9jr slow ass tourists riding mountain roads like grandmas who missed their naptime are already such a problem on colorado mountain roads, can't imagine how much worse it would get without an airport to funnel these absolute dopes right into aspen
As long-time Aspen resident, this situation is a classic example of biting the hand that feeds you.' The skyrocketing costs are already alienating the essential workforce, causing a noticeable dip in service throughout the valley. Messing with airline logistics is tantamount to playing with fire; imagine the disruption if airlines cease flying into Aspen or if it becomes unaffordable for the average traveler. Given Aspen’s heavy reliance on tourism, the current trajectory seems unsustainable, and this incident is just one of many canaries in the coal mine. They can't have it all-a pristine environment, a booming economy, sparse crowds, tranquility, and exclusivity for wealthy families. Something has to give in this
@@Kandralla Have fun cleaning your own house, doing your own landscaping, watching your own dogs, going the next city over for groceries, cooking your own food, and making your own coffee, etc, etc. Damn straight they're essential.
I've heard that in Sedona, AZ (a similar setup to Aspen but it doesn't get very cold), that many essential workers have to live in trailers or even their own vehicles. Because the cheapest house is entirely unaffordable. I guess in Aspen where you can't live in a vehicle for 7 months a year, they have to just drive far or live many people to an apartment.
@@evanhughes3027I think he’s joking around. That reply was hilarious. My family like most- does its own shopping. We also take care of the lawn and we actually clean the house ourselves 🙏 That’s a normal middle income household.
I suppose that is a way of looking at it, but places like Aspen, Telluride, and Ouray literally have no space to grow. They physically cannot support substantial population growth.
It's the equivalent of a cul-de-sac for airports. A private driveway we all pay for but only a select few get to enjoy, while still happily clogging up the rest of our transportation infrastructure. Adding costs and delays for everyone else at our own expense. If big city airports could retaliate by banning those small, inefficient airplanes from Aspen, they'd probably scramble to move that runway tomorrow!
wait, what? unlike popular believe, taxes don't just go into one pot and no one knows who paid how much and is just distributed willy-nilly according to the politician in charge's taste. property taxes are supposed to finance the infrastructure needed to support it. besides, everyone's living somewhere, no? so, if you say that your tax dollars are used to build something for your neighbor-well, whatcha thinking the tax money of your neighbor is being used for, hmm? he might just be thinking the same about you, lol. -- airports couldn't care less about fuel efficiency of the planes they allow to land there. when they pay the associated landing fee, they can land there; well, they actually have a right to land there, just like you can drive on pubic roads as long as you pay for you car registration. so, your idea of big city airports sticking together just because you don't like small planes is a bit hilarious. when there's demand to go to a place that requires smaller planes even at the expense of higher ticket prices, then someone will offer it (rightfully so.) if you want to shut down Aspen altogether, then rich people will simply find some substitute place to go; you're engaging in a game of whack-a-mole, it looks like.
I live in CO and attended the Aspen Music School. Literally five minutes after I got out of the car the first day I was there I heard the first of many random passers-by complaining about poor people
At SkyWest we just only now got the e175 certified to go into ASE. The problem is single engine performance if they have do perform a balked landing and have a subsequent engine failure. Currently the only airliner that has the single engine performance to escape the terrain without either being insanely weight restricted or having to have a complete engine teardown is the CRJ700.
Yes it’s good to see that transition occurring after years of talk it will be interesting what restrictions will have to be put in place when we start getting high density alt next summer
You will have the same performance issues with the A220 or 737. Due to single engine performance operators will have to leave seats open to reduce weight. Ticket prices will go up and carbon emissions per pax will rise as well
Either way the "Conform to our standards or no funding" has to happen. Just because you are wealthier on average than the rest of the country doesn't mean you get special treatment, unless you pay for it yourself. If the planes aren't too loud for poor people they aren't too loud for them.
I just love their argument that the expansion shouldn’t happen at taxpayer expense but instead we should keep the existing airport at a taxpayer expense that happens to be more local meaning that their effective tax rate would have to increase instead of it being spread I don’t know a federal budget. Stupidest argument I’ve ever heard yeah instead of paying one cent towards this development I would rather pay multiple likely hundreds of dollars in my tax bill.
That kind of logic starts to break down when they're contributing more than average tax dollars. You can't use that logic when it's convenient. Your entire comment comes off as malicious instead of helpful. I'm sure that's not what you intended.
@@robertewalt7789 right that’s the point. Instead of it being a federal tax issue and spreading the burden across the surrounding community state and country they’ve decided that they want to fund it themselves. I get that their plan is to use the FBO as a way to generate the revenue, but it isn’t exactly the best plan. Government tends not to do very well at operating what is essentially a for-profit business. The current FBO might be able to operate and make say 20 million a year but that’s because they provide services that the government just wont. Sure the government operating as a fixed base operator might be able to manage a lot of things such as renting out hangers, the tiedown services basically the real estate side of the bossiness , but they generally tend to lack on other things like catering services and aircraft maintenance services as those aren’t as “essential” to the operation of an airport. While they may not be essential, they are decent streams of revenue especially aircraft maintenance. Not to mention fuel services which tend to be very, very speculative as the price of fuel fluctuates quite alarming at times and need to be managed by someone with a stong pulse on the market. Essentially the point is that taking over the FBO is probably not practical the example of Jackson hole in the video isn’t the same as what is happening in Aspen. Jackson hole has a lot of private plane flight. They don’t necessarily need the catering services and aircraft maintenance and fuel prices. Don’t need to be as competitive as rich people on private planes. Don’t care quite as much as airlines trying to operate a profitable route. So what will end up happening is you’re just gonna lose customers mainly the commercial customers that actually pay the bills.
NIMBY-ism rich guy style: We don't need larger planes, my private jet fits just fine. Also, think of all the emission reductions when poor sods can't afford to fly!
@@purposly not a bad idea, time to get rid of anti-discrimination laws, this comment has fully cemented my belief. that and fat people making healthcare more expensive
So many other reasons we are already staying away. Not necessary. A+ on the effort tho, we know they have a lot of free time on their hands when they aren't busy policing the neighborhood. Speaking of which, time to take my fithy self over to clean their toilet. Which of course does not smell at all.
And by “filthy commoners” the billionaires mean 1%er family making well over $500k a year. Because those are the people who can afford a ski vacation in aspen anyway.
@@dand5829 the rich people of all stripes want the runway expanded. This is the opposite of the rich trying to keep the poor away. In this case it is the poor trying to keep the rich from flying more and larger private aircraft into the airport
My family ran an FBO in Grand Junction, CO, a town about 90 mins from Aspen, but a much larger runway. Therefore all jets too big to land in Aspen land there, and take a smaller plane in (talking private jets) One of my favorite memories was when the Saudi Prince Bandar would fly in his Airbus….. he would get off the jet after his staff of about 100 people, including servants, and body guards toting automatic weapons. The staff would board about 10 limo busses, and his security detail would board his gulfstream. On his way out he’d line up our line staff, and hand the a crisp $100 bill each. Then our staff would board his jet, fuel and service it. The best part was my Dad would bring home his extra food from Saudi Arabia, and we’d get to eat like a Prince that night!
I got to do something similar with the queen of Qatar in 2011 or 2012. Flew into Denver on a massive Airbus, then chartered a 737 to fly to Eagle for her trip to Vail. Meanwhile, all her luggage that didn't fit got transported by van, SUV, and Uhaul. We had an entire SUV full of fur coats. I had only lived in Vail for a month or two at the time, so that was a huge shock for me.
@@TalasDDThe "richer" rich folks will charter whatever aircraft they need to get to the destination they want. If I had a 737 charter jet and it was close, I'd pay some charter company with a falcon or citation to get me the rest of the way. It's a different type of rich, they ain't pinching pennies
Exactly. And they could get what they want by just pooling their money and paying for the runway repairs themselves without increasing runway size, but they won't do that because they didn't get rich by spending money, they got rich by pushing others out of markets like they're doing here
I work for skywest as a mechanic and know first hand of this struggle for power between the people and the govt up in aspen. It will be interesting to see what happens this upcoming ski season when our 175s start service up there.
I’m a ramper at a different station but flew into aspen last Friday. I was talking to them about receiving the 175s and from what I could tell the airport crew was excited. When I talked to some aspen residents a lot of them became unresponsive when I told them I wasn’t a local, so I started saying I was from park city, Utah, another ski town and a lot of them were more willing to talk to me. It really is the people living there just wanting to gate keep their community.
@@traviswennerholm1154 "Gatekeep their community" You mean try to not become over touristed like whats happening at all the other touristy hotspot arround the globe...
@@minecraftfirefighter Lol, its the current tourists who don't want any more tourists there. Just a bunch of rich elites who want to pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist.
Another push for the ERJ to fly into Aspen is that it can fly RNP approaches, increasing the likelihood that the plane can land in poor visibility. I’m a pilot at SkyWest (the airline that actually flys into ASE) and I’ve seen our new RNAV approach into ASE and it’s pretty nifty
I didn’t realize the ERJ would improve this, that is great news. I use to work as a shuttle driver in Aspen and had to deal with the multitude of diversions on low ceiling days.
Thank you so much for stepping out of your comfort zone and making a video about airplanes, it takes true courage to change what you do, you are a hero.
You should make a video about the problem with the southeast Alaskan ferry system. It is a car fairy system that is in place because southeast Alaska does not have roads so Alaskans travel by plane or boat. It is a big problem because it is very unreliable, old, outdated, expensive, and the ferry’s are in maintenance for almost 1year per 2.5 years of service
It's not just the "southeast Alaskan ferry system", it's the Alaska Marine Highway System, and coastal AK communities not located in the panhandle are having the same issues with it.
Aspen is considered one of the most beautiful and desirable locations on Earth. If NIMBYism is the reason for that, then NIMBY is not much of an insult.
@@lucase.2546 EVERY beautiful place without the majesty of Mother Earth would be shitty. So what? Aspen has beauty, wealth and prestige. And it has all of this even with restrictionist "backwards" NIMBY policies. Maybe the policies aren't backwards, maybe people who think NIMBY is an insult are the backwards ones.
Private jets are not environmentally conscious. This is a collective of wealthy residents wanting to maintain exclusivity while calling it environmentalism.
@@jasoncrandall. Not really. An airline will cram as many passengers as it can into a Commercial fight so the # of people moved per pound of fuel used is lower It’s like comparing a bus to a limo a limo will use less fuel but only move a fraction of the people Per capita figures matter
@@stephenandersen4625 so you take the bus everywhere you go? You believe every travel experience should be to cram as many humans into one moving object as possible? To save the planet? The heavier the airplane…. The more fuel it burns to propel itself through space and the slower it goes. The lighter the airplane…. The less fuel it burns and the faster it goes and the higher it can climb. It’s just physics. Hope you answer my questions.
It seems pretty simple to me. If Aspen wants to limit large aircraft, they need to pay for upkeep themselves. If they want federal funding, they need to accept the strings that come with it.
I used to work for SkyWest and if you were working a flight that went into Aspen or connected thru Aspen, you were almost guaranteed the flight would be cancelled or extremely delayed. The approach was like threading a needle. If you want a great flight for a ski vacation, go to Salt Lake or Jackson Hole
How can talking about lowering per-passenger emissions and the addition of larger private jets really be in the same argument? Don't get me wrong I love GA but when you see a multi engine jet pull up and one passenger step out cant help to think it is a bit excessive
Lowering per-passenger emissions and the addition of larger private jets _aren't_ the same argument. Moving the runway would allow larger _commercial_ jets, such as the 737, which produce much less emissions per passenger than the CRJ-700. The "larger private jets" argument is because big land developers own big private jets, and the residents of Aspen want to keep them out (because, you know, big land developers can't fly commercial, or just drive /s).
The ramp is already crowded with private jets and I’d much rather see a g650 that is quieter and has newer engine tech than an old falcon etc. and the in service numbers of large private jets that do not align well with community goals is not very high.
@@HiddenWindshield the people who would be flying big private jets into Aspen aren't big land developers (OK a few would be). They are billionaires, titans of industry, celebrities, and royalty.
@@dzapper7 Yes, I know. I wasn't giving my own opinion there, I was explaining what the residents of Aspen think (at least, according to this video). So, if you wish to correct someone, you should direct your comment toward Aspen, not to me.
does sam make so many videos about ski town colorado because he lives there, or does he live there because he wants to make so many videos about ski town colorado 🤯
I think you haven't seen the prices of anything in Aspen. A 1-day pass at one resort and associated fees exceeds $1500. I doubt they aren't worried about some flood of ordinary people ruining some of the highest demand (thus, cost) slopes in the word. 😂
Clearly Wendover did a poor job articulating who is fighting for what: The ultra-rich are fighting _for_ the expansion so they can fly larger private jets in, the "poor" community members are _against_ the expansion because we don't want more _private_ aircraft traffic.
This is similar to the situation at Toronto's Billy Bishop Airport (City Centre Island Airport...CYTZ). A 200m bridge was cancelled, runway extension was stopped, and jets are banned (A220 was proposed. "NO JETS" because they're too loud, but Piaggio P.180 is allowed) It's a NIMBY problem, and a bureaucratic nightmare, but it's so popular that it flourishes despite the limitations.
The A220 is absolutely perfect forthis airport. Fully agree, that it's a prime example of NIMBY-ism and virtue signaling. They can GTFOH with all the BS.
@@S1baarExactly right! Modern jets are VERY quiet. The reason for banning jets is BS. I've seen a Medevac jet come and go from YYZ, and could barely hear it from the city noise. (Medevac are exempt)
@@andrewleung5049 They complain about the Gardiner Expressway too. The current plan is to realign the eastern section north (closer to the rail), but they want to tear it all down.
Let's take the sub-1% of Americans who own property in Aspen and look at what they're really saying: "We live here, we just don't want you to live here. Also, we demand greener jets but if we travel we'll just take our own "
It's mostly owned by commercial property conglomerates. In terms of permanent residents, it's sub .00005% of Americans unless you count the fact that any index investment will cover a great deal of the retail and resort property just because of the companies involved. Sub 1% doesn't sound inclusive considering the tiny fraction in reality. The real issue is Sam has stopped making videos for RUclips and now is pretty much just a lobbying platform for these insular communities in the Rockies to try and get the attention of the vast majority of us who will never even see Aspen in our lives. It's kinda silly. But I feel like I can see a pretty clear trail of high denomination cash connecting it, else why would he just stop trying to appeal to a wider audience anymore? Nothing's going down in price, RUclips moves lightning fast, and nebula is not likely to keep up the growth demanded to finance this stuff, because wendover and hai aren't and when you are sponsoring one company with the other, they are both reliant on what? All roads lead to Rome.
@@philbert006You're fucking insane lol. "Yeah the cabal of billionaires is paying Sam from Wendover to make NIMBY propaganda" how about take your meds?
Don't forget that they need folks to clean their toilets, but Those People can't afford to live anywhere near and have to commute from Glenwood or further ☹
Can you imagine being so rich that the most pressing issue in your life is arguing over how big your airport should be to prevent too many people outside the 1% from visiting?
@@DalerMehndiDeekSheik as a pilot myself and Aspen resident, I want to expand it. Mainly because I like planes, I’m a nerd. The airport isn’t gonna limit the outsiders of 1% from coming or going, the housing cost already do that.
Visiting? I live in my car under the flight path for this airport. They don't want us _living_ there. I actually may be having to leave because I can't find housing.
It's the classic Not-In-My-Backyard story. I bet they don't think twice about flying into LAX or New York and what the neighbors might think about it there. An extra delay for the 300+ person flight to Dallas because of their small, pesky airplanes clogging up the runway? So be it. But please, keep sending the cheques productive cities of America!
seriously.. it was just intended as a trigger flaunting their elitism. they dont care about anything honestly. oh wait, nevermind this is a completely narcissistic self-centered entitled person's concern here. I apologize.. they care very much.
So if I'm understanding correctly, the plan is to get around the FAA's restrictions on discriminating against plane type by simply continuing to make it so unsafe for certain plane types that the FAA is forced to disallow them? There's no way that ends well...
Buckle up for an essay, apologies in advance. Aspen resident here, who has watched this play out firsthand over many years. It is interesting to read the comments as I think a lot of viewers actually have the dynamic completely backwards. Typically, I would understand an outsider’s expectation to be that the “NIMBY” coalition is made up of the wealthiest and most elite. However, if you talk to local residents, attend local government seminars/public commentary, and read letters to the editor in the local newspaper, you will find it is quite the opposite. Generally speaking, the true “locals” in Aspen (not many remain as they are increasingly priced out) are vehemently against the expansion of the airport. They moved to Aspen to get away from the hustle and bustle of normal city life and to spend most of their free time in nature. They live in very humble housing. They are not traveling or using the airport frequently because they cannot afford it - they moved to Aspen to spend time here, not to jet set around the world with Aspen as their home base. Airport noise sounds like a typical complaint of the 1% but they are not the ones complaining in this instance. The billionaires do not live in Aspen. They fly in for weekend festivals, fundraisers, and New Year’s Eve parties and fly back to NYC, California, Texas, or Florida. They do not care about their “carbon footprint”. They care about their own convenience and ensuring that they will be able to sell their vacation home at a profit to the next billionaire at the drop of a hat if needed. As such, the billionaires, hundred-millionaires, and the corporate interest who owns the ski resort/fine dining/luxury hotels (now called Aspen One, owned by the billionaire Crown family) are pushing hard for the airport expansion. The big money is not NIMBY in this case. The big money is funding the ad campaigns which urge the public to support the bigger airport for “a cleaner and quieter future” despite having presented zero empirical evidence over the past ~4 years that the expansion would lead to any reduction in noise or air pollution. You can see this unfolding live in the pro-expansion letters to the editor in the local paper; more often than not, if you look up the letter writer on LinkedIn, you will find they are a managing partner of a real estate developer, private equity firm, or venture capital firm (search Greg Goldfarb of Summit Partners or Evan Marks of Alben Asset Management as examples of recent “concerned citizen” writers). These people rarely actually call Aspen their home. It is just a 2nd (or 3rd) vacation home which they desire to fly in and out of at utmost ease for a total of a few weeks per year. The newer, larger private aircraft on the market today are not permitted to land with Aspen’s current wingspan restriction. That means some of these billionaire homeowners must charter smaller jets to visit their vacation home in Aspen rather than take the Gulfstream 650 they already own. The corporate interests (Aspen One) want to expand the offerings of expensive “public” private charters to Aspen, ala Aero or XO Jet with higher capacity planes. Or better yet, they want to start that service themselves. It truly feels like a wolf in sheep’s clothing with respect to public messaging. So why do they need they public support of the local Aspenite if they have all the money? Because the billionaires are not actually Aspen residents - they themselves cannot vote on local issues! They need to coerce the locals that the expansion is in the best interest of the community. You can tell that I’m largely against expansion because I don’t believe this benefits the average local, who is neither a billionaire nor a millionaire. And for those who think this will vastly increase commercial air access to the general public, think again. Commercial aviation accounted for just 17% of all Aspen airport traffic in 2022 (meaning 83% was private planes). Bigger commercial planes servicing an expanded airport could carry more people, yes, but that does not change the fact that the average hotel room rate in Aspen is over $1,000/night, the average dinner is over $150/person, and a single-day ski pass is $265 this coming winter season. Bigger planes would not suddenly open Aspen up to the masses, just more of the 1-2%. If you are someone who is in favor of more government involvement, then I can understand your support of the FAA and the Aspen airport coalition having sole power over the decision. I tend to believe that voters should be able to decide on the outcome of such a major decision in their own town. I also believe that if you want less government involvement like I do, you should not be able rely on federal funding. This airport could fund its own yearly maintenance and improvements multiple times over - the revenue from fuel sales and landing/parking fees alone (these are currently privatized by an operator) are enormous! A small, regional airport should not be allowed to rely on federal tax dollars, nor should it even rely heavily on local voter tax dollars when 83% of the use is attributable to out of town billionaire visitors with non-Colorado tax status. This airport was not originally built to service anything larger than a handful of turboprops per day based on its location and proximity to the urban center, just 2 miles away. If I had any say, the airport would be eliminated in favor of moving air traffic down valley to a bigger, better Rifle airport where landing is far less dangerous, land is cheaper/flatter/more plentiful, and surrounding residents are sparse. Public transport from Aspen to an airport down valley would be a great investment.
You should clarify you only speak for some locals and certainly not a vast majority. I've lived in the area for 20 years and it's very split down the middle. I'm middle class and firmly believe it's in the best interest to move it. I'm not going to post an essay but here the one important thing to know is that Aspen will loose commercial service if it is not moved. The CRJ700 IS being retired next year for United (contract is over) and American and Delta are likely to follow in the next few. As a local, that would be devastating. Eagle County is no cheaper then Aspen and tends to be more expensive. Also side note, anyone that has moved to Aspen since the ski areas have been built know that it's been a playground for the rich. This isn't anything new not even remotely. The true locals? Ones that have been here for generations. Sincerely awesome people that are tired of everyone always complaining about something. (I've talked to them, real down to earth people.) All of us since then? We are the new locals so let's not pretend we aren't part of the problem.
Of course you are right that I can’t speak for everyone but that is my overwhelming experience. And yes, I have family ties to the valley well before the ski tourism industry took off. My commentary was less about the logistics of the airport’s future and more about an outsider’s perception of incentives - particularly the perception that all of the wealthy folks are against changing the airport, which is simply false if you dig into the money behind the organizations. Sure, we are all part of the tourism “problem” in some way. But if you move to Aspen with expectations of flying regularly around the country with the same ease that you would in a larger city, I would say your expectations are unrealistic and that you are a bigger part of the “problem”. I see that you are a plane enthusiast by your profile. No hate, to each their own, but people interested in planes, tracking flights, etc are almost always in favor of newer and bigger as it makes their hobby more interesting. I believe expansion is going to happen one way or another as Aspen is too much of a cash cow to too many parties for it to fail, I am just trying to set the record straight on incentives. The coordinated and well-funded campaign to expand is not solely “looking out” for locals’ travel options or the environment…and I really dislike naivety.
Wow, thank you so much. This was super insightful! As I was watching the video, I was forming an analysis based off of class structure, and who would benefit the most from each of the plans. As soon as I heard that business execs were supporting the expansion, it was very clear to me that the expansion was the plan that would benefit the ruling class the most. Reading all these comments about Nimby’s. I was starting to second-guess myself and question my analysis. So I was so glad when I found your comment. It rooted me back in reality. Thank you comrade!
@JonTylerWallace98 Oh, there is definitely many interest involved no doubt at the local level. At the federal level? I'm sure there is some lobbying involved but ultimately the FAA is just doing their job. They probably should of never gave Aspen the exemption to begin with but now here we are. Fair game to call out my aviation interest. But that's not what sways my opinion. I just want options when it comes to flying. Is Aspen more expensive then Denver? Yes, but when you figure in gas and parking you'd be shocked how close it is. There is a break even point where it is cheaper to fly local. The flight videos I have on my channel are simply from flights I take to see family or vacation trips. I don't plane spot or do anything recreational either so no benefit there. This isn't a hobby for me. I fly for the convenience and just take videos on the side. Not sure if that changes your opinion but just so you know. Like I said, I'm a local with a vested interest because I see a future that we either sustain commercial flying or not. The ironic part is if the airport is downgraded ultimately all it will see afterwards is only private aviation and that certainly doesn't do anything for me or you.
It's the same basic layout as Innsbruck in Austria. Aspen is a regional airport under FAA regulations and you have to expand on the airport infrastructure because it has a level 5 runway ✈️
Back in the early 1970s, I flew from Denver to Aspen on Aspen Airways (long gone). The aircraft was a (sort of) pressurized DC3. The jury rigged pressurization seals failed with a loud pop and a hiss about five miles from the Aspen airport. I didn't exactly kiss the ground when we landed, but I considered it. The flight was in June. The thought of flying that route in the Winter... uh, no. But it was fun to fly on what must have been one of the last DC3s still in US scheduled passenger service and we certainly got a close up view of the peaks.
DC-3's weren't pressurized. The first Douglas airliner that was pressurized was the DC-6. You were probably flying in a Convair 340 or 440. Aspen's fleet was pretty much exclusively Convairs in the 70's
The phrase you’re looking for in the descent to the airport is ° (degrees) not % (percent). Applying the percent principle to the 360° angles planes would be pitched down to meet a 21.6° angle of descent. Great video though, very informative.
Even if it's privately owned, it still has to receive clearance and approval from the FAA, which they are saying they won't give. Making it private doesn't change that, nor would being privately owned change the local codes for changing it.
It's a ski resort, with basically the only people actually living there being those who own it. If they want to limit their customer base.... That's their problem... The issue is more along the lines of them getting government money, that you pay taxes for, in order to subsidize some rich guy's vacation. But they won't be... So, that's fine.
They will. The only point to this was to make normal people wince in disgust and stay away. The airport will be private. And they will need the bigger planes anyway. To fly in all the "help" they will need tagging along.
@@MrSterlingg notv even that. Normal people cannot afford buying any thing in Aspen. Shops in Aspen cannot afford to cater to normal people goven the limited space and astronomical prices.
Delta's 717's are planned to be replaced by A220s by next year, which is in the same class as the 737, wingspan-wise. It has twice the thrust as the 717.
A few years ago I organized a conference in Aspen and met one of the speakers at the airport. I was surprised that he arrived on a commercial jet. I expected it to be a prop plane I’ve flown on into smaller airports or on short flights.
@@MrSterlinggthat's another reason to not increase air traffic because of the approach and take off hazards. More traffic will result in more development in the area creating a larger carbon footprint in the area which will easily offset the current footprint created by the current aircraft and vehicle and every day emissions of the small population of residents living there. Boise Idaho has a issue with smog because of its location at the foot of the mountains. It looks like they would have the same problem with a larger population.
As Lloyd Christmas says, "A place where the beer flows like wine. Where beautiful women instinctively flock like the salmon of Capistrano. I'm talking about a little place called Aspen."
Overall an informative piece. A minor point: typically paving projects (i.e., repairing the runway) aren’t done in the winter due to low temperatures. So emergency repairs might close the runway during the ski season, but probably not full scale runway rebuilding. Also, if tourists on private jets can’t land at Aspen, they typically land at Rifle (KRIL). So the folks with $$$ are still going to get to have their skiing vacation. On another note, the Aspen airspace and the airport ramp is exceptionally busy, even in the summer - pilots definitely need to bring their A game. A plan that would reduce the number of aircraft (e.g., using planes with more seats to allow fewer planes to move the same number of pax) could make the airspace and ramp less busy and therefore safer.
Current E175 driver at SkyWest, currently flying into EGE which is already a big struggle bus on this plane due to poor single engine performance at altitude. I start flying this thing to ASE in December and let me tell you guys: we are so cooked.
@@breckr1121 Most airports have glide paths between 2 and 4 degrees. The video mistakenly said this airport's descent rate was 6 percent, but should have said 6 degrees, which is about 10.5%.
@@breckr1121 yeah, but the numbers he mentions are definitely degrees. d-TPP “INSTRUMENT TAKEOFF OR APPROACH PROCEDURE CHARTS RATE OF CLIMB/DESCENT TABLE” has degrees and percents. But I think he was referring to the fact that a regular approach plate or VASI is 3 degrees and an instrument approach into Aspen calls for 6.59 glidepath angle. 3 degrees is 5.27% and It would be more than 9% for 6.59 degree glide path.
omg all of you aeronautical fact checkers and number crunchers.. go donate your time to mentoring a disadvantaged kid with a dream of becoming a pilot or something. Why am I wasting time here? The mindblowing ignorance of real issues. I usually don't rubberneck when I am passing by a dumpster fire. These comments are crazy flavored icing on the cake of insanity this non-issue is.
Colorado has a surprising amount of private runways. We even have a neighborhood with a private runway. I am not kidding. It's like 10 or so minutes east of Lochbuie and Brighton. There's like 50 or so houses that almost all of them are connected to it by long ass taxiways. There are a handful of houses that don't have the land to be attached to a taxiway and are 30% of the price of all the other houses.
Interesting! We have a similar situation in Erie, Colorado with a local airport connecting to homes with private airplane hangars. I am happy to see those airplane owners and home owners having their fun so long as they are not voting for zero carbon policies. (If they truly believe that carbon emissions will destroy the Earth in six years, then they should be living in tents and not driving or flying anything.) As for the folks in Aspen, I wish them the best!
"If it suits our wants, we will kick you out and take over your business". What a message that would send to businesses wanting to operate in Aspen. I think that was tried unsuccessfully in Venezuela.
Though I don't know the specific infrastructure of the Aspen area, it seems this impasse may make the case for more passenger rail and less reliance on air travel. If we put as much public and private sector support into trains as we do planes and airports we might be able to get everyone wishing to go to places like Aspen there just as fast and with far less pollution.
I flew the Q400 into here from early 2013 until late 2015. Even on a hot summer day we could depart full and still have the single engine performance if needed. And - on arrival we could circle to 33 which was crazy
Wendover will make anything about anything. Literally a great background noise at this point. I have never even been to Aspen but after watching this video, i care nothing. Yet, I see a wendover video and i click it. Love this.
I tend to automatically click on all new Wendover releases regardless of subject, because they always find an intriguing angle to stories that don't necessarily have my interest. This time though, I was two-thirds of the way in and it suddenly hit me: I don't care at all how this plays out, who is right or who wins this argument.
I lasted almost 5 minutes. There are 15 more and I can't fathom what they contain. The point is pretty well covered by minute 2 :"rich people don't like poors."
You'd be surprise. SFO (San Francisco International Airport) wanted to move apart the two runways by a couple of hundred feet due to fog issue. The environmentalists declare that it will destroy the 'wetland' next to the runways, never mind that those 'wetland' were made by the creation of the runways in the first place.
Not the entire airport you silly. just pick up the runway. it is made for feet. it's a runway after all. All you need to do is roll up the runway and roll it over to the new spot.
Many wealthy places have worked to keep out various modes of public transportation, and we all know why. They don't want to have to look at or interact with individuals at lower levels of the wealth spectrum. Then they lament that "nobody wants to work" because they've essentially walled out the local workforce.
This just reminds me how much I miss the single row side on MD-80's for cross country trips back in the day. The more we get crammed in like cattle, the more I want to be sedated and put in the cargo hold.
get a private jet, duh. makes no sense why everyone doesn't do it. so they can whine about crap like this when they get back home from voting for a traitorous murderer
Also, Aspen sucks down jet fuel to the tune of 50,000 to 75,000 gallons a DAY during peak season. That's 8 to 10 truck loads. Eagle and Gypsum also have unleaded spikes because that's where most of the people who work in Aspen commute from. Aspen's carbon footprint is already much much much bigger than any town of equal size. The only place that can come close to competing is Eagle Airport because that's where the larger planes have to land. Then all those people rent Escalades and drive to Aspen.
A quick google search has shown me that Aspen is a hair's breadth from Denver, and already has a railway line running past to the north. Just run a train to Aspen? If it really is a popular tourist destination then trains can transport thousands of people cheaply, quietly, efficiently, and with minimal spatial impact to the locals. Tourist and ski trains are everywhere in Europe. Even here in Australia we have railways branching into mountainous terrain to serve communities near our big cities (Adelaide's Belair line, Sydney's Blue Mountains Line, and Melbourne's Belgrave line, to name a couple off the top of my head.)
Nobody uses trains in this country and that’s basically as good as just not having access outside of driving. Getting a train is really out of the way and slower than driving; people should be able to fly in.
@@christianmoore7109Self-fulling prophecy. Planes have the disadvantages of massive carbon emissions, noise pollution, and millions in wasted taxes. Trains are cheaper than cars and planes, are safer than cars, and are better for tourists to be able to travel stress-free. There's no real reason why trains should be slower than driving with the right investments.
there is a train currently that goes through the mountains already. it just doesn’t stop at aspen, it stops 30 mins away in glenwood springs which is then accessible by bus into aspen. but that’s not issue. it’s aspens super wealthy not wanting more people to access the town.
@gotmilk20091 Same with my town. There was a proposal to extend the metropolitan rail network to where I live, but the rich nimbys who've never caught a train in their life didn't want it. So, now I'm stuck paying thousands for a car I don't want. Yes, I am trying to move, but getting a job with a living wage is hard these days.
If they're going to perform an upgrade, I'd say let's just go with the county plan and do the thing. All a refusal to relocate the runway will do is create an even more restrictive bottleneck as the area continues to grow and prevent the airport from receiving federal funding.
I rode at Snowmass long before boards were allowed on Ajax, and it's definitely some of the best terrain on the planet. They can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned, egalitarian access to certain mountains is a nice idea but we have a lot of other problems to solve before easing commercial access to luxury ski resorts. Edit: I didn't realize I'd never skied Snowmass till now, only the other 3 until they allowed snowboarding as well.
You set the architecture up with certain angles in mind so during the summer the windows are shaded and during the winter the sun is coming in through them. Passive heating in winter and limiting unwanted solar gain during summer.
As someone whose town (by the beach, not mountains) was utterly destroyed by over-dense tourism to the point where there is literally no school district left and few residential homes still existing, I'd tell residents to do everything they can to prevent an influx. It's spectacular if you own real estate. It's horrible if you live somewhere you like and want to stay there and see your children live there.
The most difficult times for the Aspen airport are hot summer days, where the density altitude can prevent nearly all jet aircraft takeoffs. Aspen has some awesome paragliding and hang-gliding sites, and more than once I've flown into Aspen only to be unable to leave, stuck waiting for a suitable takeoff window.
A level 8 runway to level 9 runway your basic aircraft like the 737 Max Series, The Embraer E-195, Small Airbus aircraft and Gulfstream takeoff on no greater than a level 9 runway 🛫 ✈️ 🛬
I feel bad for the average residents of Aspen. Imo the feds should just close the airport until everything is brought to a higher level of safety. Let the voters of Aspen choose whether the loss of tourism is worth staying with the current system.
This comment thread seems littered with a similar misunderstanding, let me clarify something: it's the ultra-rich lobbying _for_ the runway expansion so they can fly Gulfstream 650's in. It's the local "poor" people lobbying _against_ the runway expansion because we already have more than enough entitled people to deal with. The NIMBY themed comments all have it exactly backwards.
I have skied at Aspen three times. The airport provided no part of my journey. I drove from Oregon as part of a many-ski-area trip. Whether the airport expands, contracts, or closes probably has no effect on my future plans. Why is there no apparent consideration to providing bus service from Salt Lake City or Jackson Hole? That seems a fairly obvious solution, especially during challenging weather. But maybe they don't have that?
The video said that the wingspan limitation of 95ft excludes "all" of American, United, and Delta's mainline fleet. Technically, Delta operates the Boeing 717 as a mainline aircraft, which has a wingspan of 93.4 feet.
"We are worried about our carbon footprint"
*only flies private*
@@alexibarra4675 how do you figure? Mass transit will alway he cleaner then a larger multitude of smaller single destination vehicles.
@@alexibarra4675 True but if you take a full airliner and divide it by the average capacity and then take a Gulfstream or Bombardier and divide it by the few people that will be using it, the individual footprint is surely higher no? Not that I really care about this footprint stuff anyway
@@alexibarra4675 you're wrong about the carbon footprint, and it's quite simple. Bigger planes are more efficient because they take many people to destinations. "Commuter stop" is pointless, when you think about how active airlines are and how many numerous destinations there are. There is no argument WHATSOEVER that private planes create a smaller carbon footprint.
Private jets just save the person time, not even money. It's terrible for the environment.
@@alexibarra4675 that's not how hub transit nor jet fuel consumption works.
First off no airplane will divert to Aspin for fuel. None! It is not a hub built for the accommodation that could service more than eight jets which is its terminals max.
Now as for the consumption being that Aspin is in a valley you will have to contend with heavy cross winds, ice, and snow all of which are dangerous for air liners. This forces them to only use the needed amount of fuel required to get to your destination and no more. This is for safety as excess fuel during an accident in a confined area can cause a larger incident.
Now take into account how a single airliner with a minimum take off of 30 passengers is required to make a normal Southwest Airlines where as if those same thirty decided to go via a private Gulfstream. At min minimum you looking at 2 separate aircraft with a potential of 30 via this scenario that will expand the carbon footprint. It not a zero sum game when you do the math.
Also, with the newer engines coming from Rolls-Royce, General Electric two of the largest suppliers of the industry; they are promising a 50% reduction in emissions and 25% reduction in fuel consumption. It has the industry buzzing and is why so many companies bought from Beoing. It was supposed to make alternate destinations more viable financially.
All in all this is just a petty play by rich elites looking to maintain property values and exclusivity.
@alexibarra4675 's idea is that by restricting not so rich people to travel, we can reduce carbon footprint because now only rich few people can travel.
The 0.001% fighting with the 0.01% about potential opening up of access to the 0.1% in a small ski valley.
That sums this video up.
Its literally a false cover to flaunt their eliteness. To keep the normies away. It's highly effective.
We were just here, for climbing the Maroon Bells, and you are so correct. A mecca for only "elites". You should see how they dress, just to go to the bar, to have a couple of drinks. Money oozing out of their pores.
Hahahaha amazingly accurate.
Yup i didnt watch past the first 2 minutes. Dumbass rich people drama… why did this need a 20 minute video?
Also the super rich wanting taxpayers to pay for their stuff, but taxpayers not being able to use it. Good times.
Here to add to Wendover's annual correction video - at 3:43, they descend at a 6 degree glideslope, not a 6 percent glideslope - in actual fact, a 10.5 percent grade.
Oh wow, I thought most approaches were on a 3-degree glideslope! Is it 6 here because of the high terrain around the airport?
@@hockeygrrlmuse correct
@@hockeygrrlmuse Up to 6.59 Degrees
@@hockeygrrlmuseThe reasoning is still correct in the video; it’s just the unit for the number that’s wrong.
6% would be 3° or am I wrong?
One thing that the residents of Aspen may not have considered is the very real possibility that the FAA ends the charter for the airport, effectively having it be closed permanently. This would certainly leave the area much quieter and with a much lower carbon footprint. Care should be taken where one treads.
Hope they enjoy the terrifying drive into town!
If they are truly concerned about carbon footprint and noise pollution , this is what they would want. If...
@sir9integra9jr slow ass tourists riding mountain roads like grandmas who missed their naptime are already such a problem on colorado mountain roads, can't imagine how much worse it would get without an airport to funnel these absolute dopes right into aspen
I'm fine with that. Rifle is easier to get in/out of. Maybe they could then move the tower there as well.
@@KenLee-e5y if they really cared about carbon footprints, almost all of them wouldn't be living in Aspen
As long-time Aspen resident, this situation is a classic example of biting the hand that feeds you.' The skyrocketing costs are already alienating the essential workforce, causing a noticeable dip in service throughout the valley. Messing with airline logistics is tantamount to playing with fire; imagine the disruption if airlines cease flying into Aspen or if it becomes unaffordable for the average traveler. Given Aspen’s heavy reliance on tourism, the current trajectory seems unsustainable, and this incident is just one of many canaries in the coal mine. They can't have it all-a pristine environment, a booming economy, sparse crowds, tranquility, and exclusivity for wealthy families. Something has to give in this
Essential workers. LOL.
@@Kandralla Have fun cleaning your own house, doing your own landscaping, watching your own dogs, going the next city over for groceries, cooking your own food, and making your own coffee, etc, etc.
Damn straight they're essential.
@sgtkasi i hope this is in jest.
I've heard that in Sedona, AZ (a similar setup to Aspen but it doesn't get very cold), that many essential workers have to live in trailers or even their own vehicles. Because the cheapest house is entirely unaffordable. I guess in Aspen where you can't live in a vehicle for 7 months a year, they have to just drive far or live many people to an apartment.
@@evanhughes3027I think he’s joking around. That reply was hilarious.
My family like most- does its own shopping. We also take care of the lawn and we actually clean the house ourselves 🙏
That’s a normal middle income household.
"We're worried about potential future overcrowding" is NIMBY speak for "please keep the poors away from me"
They should just buy the lands near them
I suppose that is a way of looking at it, but places like Aspen, Telluride, and Ouray literally have no space to grow. They physically cannot support substantial population growth.
@@SleeperSteamUp?
@@SleeperSteamMost of Aspen is super low density suburbia. They need to allow taller buildings.
@@SleeperSteam Build up not out
This video is like the Wendover trifecta with Planes, Logisitics and American ski resorts in one video.
but we do mis a connection to a train. although the ski lifts could be seen as a odd mono rail.
no pointing out how an obscure town in France is actually already doing the same thing better, so no bingo on my sheet.
Ukraine wasn't mentioned sadly.
@@Arkiasis You're thinking of RealLifeLore, there the holy trifecta is China/Taiwan, Russia/Ukraine and of course Israel/Palestine
colorado should be included too
It's the equivalent of a cul-de-sac for airports. A private driveway we all pay for but only a select few get to enjoy, while still happily clogging up the rest of our transportation infrastructure. Adding costs and delays for everyone else at our own expense. If big city airports could retaliate by banning those small, inefficient airplanes from Aspen, they'd probably scramble to move that runway tomorrow!
wait, what? unlike popular believe, taxes don't just go into one pot and no one knows who paid how much and is just distributed willy-nilly according to the politician in charge's taste.
property taxes are supposed to finance the infrastructure needed to support it. besides, everyone's living somewhere, no? so, if you say that your tax dollars are used to build something for your neighbor-well, whatcha thinking the tax money of your neighbor is being used for, hmm? he might just be thinking the same about you, lol.
--
airports couldn't care less about fuel efficiency of the planes they allow to land there. when they pay the associated landing fee, they can land there; well, they actually have a right to land there, just like you can drive on pubic roads as long as you pay for you car registration.
so, your idea of big city airports sticking together just because you don't like small planes is a bit hilarious.
when there's demand to go to a place that requires smaller planes even at the expense of higher ticket prices, then someone will offer it (rightfully so.)
if you want to shut down Aspen altogether, then rich people will simply find some substitute place to go; you're engaging in a game of whack-a-mole, it looks like.
I live in CO and attended the Aspen Music School. Literally five minutes after I got out of the car the first day I was there I heard the first of many random passers-by complaining about poor people
Sounds like they need a bus load or two of tent people
@@juliogonzo2718 ship them in from Los Angeles
or a few busloads of haitians
@@juliogonzo2718 Haha, they have way more than that already. There is a lot of national forest land surrounding Aspen.
@@juliogonzo2718 "tent people?" really?
At SkyWest we just only now got the e175 certified to go into ASE. The problem is single engine performance if they have do perform a balked landing and have a subsequent engine failure. Currently the only airliner that has the single engine performance to escape the terrain without either being insanely weight restricted or having to have a complete engine teardown is the CRJ700.
Complicated situation especially with the united crj700s almost being at the end of their contract
@@grass69420 There's also the minor fact that the CRJ700 is out of production, so they will eventually disappear altogether.
@@MusikurWe still have planes in commercial use all over the globe that are 70 years old.. Sure maybe most of them are largely unpressurized...
Yes it’s good to see that transition occurring after years of talk it will be interesting what restrictions will have to be put in place when we start getting high density alt next summer
You will have the same performance issues with the A220 or 737. Due to single engine performance operators will have to leave seats open to reduce weight. Ticket prices will go up and carbon emissions per pax will rise as well
Either way the "Conform to our standards or no funding" has to happen. Just because you are wealthier on average than the rest of the country doesn't mean you get special treatment, unless you pay for it yourself. If the planes aren't too loud for poor people they aren't too loud for them.
At least that’s how it _should_ be
I just love their argument that the expansion shouldn’t happen at taxpayer expense but instead we should keep the existing airport at a taxpayer expense that happens to be more local meaning that their effective tax rate would have to increase instead of it being spread I don’t know a federal budget. Stupidest argument I’ve ever heard yeah instead of paying one cent towards this development I would rather pay multiple likely hundreds of dollars in my tax bill.
@@Baker_king12 But Aspen residents and visitors both pay federal taxes also.
That kind of logic starts to break down when they're contributing more than average tax dollars. You can't use that logic when it's convenient. Your entire comment comes off as malicious instead of helpful. I'm sure that's not what you intended.
@@robertewalt7789 right that’s the point. Instead of it being a federal tax issue and spreading the burden across the surrounding community state and country they’ve decided that they want to fund it themselves. I get that their plan is to use the FBO as a way to generate the revenue, but it isn’t exactly the best plan. Government tends not to do very well at operating what is essentially a for-profit business. The current FBO might be able to operate and make say 20 million a year but that’s because they provide services that the government just wont. Sure the government operating as a fixed base operator might be able to manage a lot of things such as renting out hangers, the tiedown services basically the real estate side of the bossiness , but they generally tend to lack on other things like catering services and aircraft maintenance services as those aren’t as “essential” to the operation of an airport. While they may not be essential, they are decent streams of revenue especially aircraft maintenance. Not to mention fuel services which tend to be very, very speculative as the price of fuel fluctuates quite alarming at times and need to be managed by someone with a stong pulse on the market. Essentially the point is that taking over the FBO is probably not practical the example of Jackson hole in the video isn’t the same as what is happening in Aspen. Jackson hole has a lot of private plane flight. They don’t necessarily need the catering services and aircraft maintenance and fuel prices. Don’t need to be as competitive as rich people on private planes. Don’t care quite as much as airlines trying to operate a profitable route. So what will end up happening is you’re just gonna lose customers mainly the commercial customers that actually pay the bills.
NIMBY-ism rich guy style: We don't need larger planes, my private jet fits just fine.
Also, think of all the emission reductions when poor sods can't afford to fly!
or better we are not rich enough to afford bigger privet jets. Otherwise they would just fill up that airport with there own big ass privet jets.
Think of all the emission reductions if we fined the obese too!
@@purposlynot just emissions, think about the enormous burden we would be taking off of our failing health infrastructure
@@purposly not a bad idea, time to get rid of anti-discrimination laws, this comment has fully cemented my belief. that and fat people making healthcare more expensive
Imagine all the emission reductions when poor sods can't afford to drive new electric cars. Then we ban the sale of new ice cars in 10 years.
This basically boils down to extremely rich people in Aspen don’t want filthy commoners to be able to fly there cheaper.
So many other reasons we are already staying away. Not necessary. A+ on the effort tho, we know they have a lot of free time on their hands when they aren't busy policing the neighborhood. Speaking of which, time to take my fithy self over to clean their toilet. Which of course does not smell at all.
To be very clear, the community is worried about the increase in _private_ jet aircraft traffic. That's what the fight is about.
And by “filthy commoners” the billionaires mean 1%er family making well over $500k a year. Because those are the people who can afford a ski vacation in aspen anyway.
@@dand5829 the rich people of all stripes want the runway expanded. This is the opposite of the rich trying to keep the poor away. In this case it is the poor trying to keep the rich from flying more and larger private aircraft into the airport
@@wendlewhiting The community is worried about quality of life for the people that actually live here.
3:50 - Minor correction: The glidepath at Aspen is 6.49 *degrees,* or 11.38 percent. Likewise, the normal glideslope is 3 degrees, or 5.24 percent.
dats soo steep
Someone beat you by 7 hours. This is why you read comments before running to hastily type your smart remark.
@@RedTail1-1 Yeah, I saw that other comment.
nobody cares go do something nice for your neighbor
My family ran an FBO in Grand Junction, CO, a town about 90 mins from Aspen, but a much larger runway.
Therefore all jets too big to land in Aspen land there, and take a smaller plane in (talking private jets)
One of my favorite memories was when the Saudi Prince Bandar would fly in his Airbus….. he would get off the jet after his staff of about 100 people, including servants, and body guards toting automatic weapons.
The staff would board about 10 limo busses, and his security detail would board his gulfstream.
On his way out he’d line up our line staff, and hand the a crisp $100 bill each.
Then our staff would board his jet, fuel and service it. The best part was my Dad would bring home his extra food from Saudi Arabia, and we’d get to eat like a Prince that night!
One of the best youtube comments I've read.
I got to do something similar with the queen of Qatar in 2011 or 2012. Flew into Denver on a massive Airbus, then chartered a 737 to fly to Eagle for her trip to Vail. Meanwhile, all her luggage that didn't fit got transported by van, SUV, and Uhaul. We had an entire SUV full of fur coats. I had only lived in Vail for a month or two at the time, so that was a huge shock for me.
So what? Who are you?
tldr... rich folks who'll never fly commercial want to keep commercial jets and their poor passengers out of their resort.
There are two types of people in this world NIMBYs and people who would be NIMBYs if they had more money
correction. the poor rich folks want to keep the richer rich folks with bigger private jets out.
@@TalasDD not how that works - the richer rich folks just fly into a bigger airport and take a helicopter into the valley!
@@TalasDDThe "richer" rich folks will charter whatever aircraft they need to get to the destination they want.
If I had a 737 charter jet and it was close, I'd pay some charter company with a falcon or citation to get me the rest of the way.
It's a different type of rich, they ain't pinching pennies
Exactly. And they could get what they want by just pooling their money and paying for the runway repairs themselves without increasing runway size, but they won't do that because they didn't get rich by spending money, they got rich by pushing others out of markets like they're doing here
I work for skywest as a mechanic and know first hand of this struggle for power between the people and the govt up in aspen. It will be interesting to see what happens this upcoming ski season when our 175s start service up there.
I’m a ramper at a different station but flew into aspen last Friday. I was talking to them about receiving the 175s and from what I could tell the airport crew was excited. When I talked to some aspen residents a lot of them became unresponsive when I told them I wasn’t a local, so I started saying I was from park city, Utah, another ski town and a lot of them were more willing to talk to me. It really is the people living there just wanting to gate keep their community.
They've always had a super hard on for nimbyism there. It's ridiculous how difficult they make life on themselves with that nonsense.
@@traviswennerholm1154They live there, can you blame them?
@@traviswennerholm1154 "Gatekeep their community" You mean try to not become over touristed like whats happening at all the other touristy hotspot arround the globe...
@@minecraftfirefighter Lol, its the current tourists who don't want any more tourists there. Just a bunch of rich elites who want to pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist.
Another push for the ERJ to fly into Aspen is that it can fly RNP approaches, increasing the likelihood that the plane can land in poor visibility. I’m a pilot at SkyWest (the airline that actually flys into ASE) and I’ve seen our new RNAV approach into ASE and it’s pretty nifty
I guess its a good thing American doesn't want the ERJ in ASE. Us CRJ DMA pilots can stay fat and happy at DFW.
@@LifeModCorp The future is now, old man!
I didn’t realize the ERJ would improve this, that is great news. I use to work as a shuttle driver in Aspen and had to deal with the multitude of diversions on low ceiling days.
@@FlightSimCFI My jaw just dropped. That is a game charger!
That was a whole heap of tech talk that means nothing to us normies.
Thank you so much for stepping out of your comfort zone and making a video about airplanes, it takes true courage to change what you do, you are a hero.
1:18 giggity
You should make a video about the problem with the southeast Alaskan ferry system. It is a car fairy system that is in place because southeast Alaska does not have roads so Alaskans travel by plane or boat. It is a big problem because it is very unreliable, old, outdated, expensive, and the ferry’s are in maintenance for almost 1year per 2.5 years of service
It's not just the "southeast Alaskan ferry system", it's the Alaska Marine Highway System, and coastal AK communities not located in the panhandle are having the same issues with it.
Maybe now that they've done a video on Hawaii's logistics issues, they'll do one on the Alaska Marine Highway.
Ah, yes, a Wendover video involving planes. Just another day at the office.
No complaints from me, as long as it's accurate
And Colorado!! The perfect topic.
A video without planes is half as interesting.
Railroad fan got jealous.
@@natelevy1040 so true
Aspen being backwards due to their NIMBYism is one of the few constants in this world.
No. Aspens lack of NIMBY’s caused the elite of america to colonize the town
Aspen is considered one of the most beautiful and desirable locations on Earth. If NIMBYism is the reason for that, then NIMBY is not much of an insult.
Not to mention the utterly moronic decision to put the HOV lane on the right hand side of the freeway.
@@andrewmalone8709Without the majesty of Mother Earth, Aspen is nothing but an overpriced ghost town.
@@lucase.2546 EVERY beautiful place without the majesty of Mother Earth would be shitty. So what?
Aspen has beauty, wealth and prestige. And it has all of this even with restrictionist "backwards" NIMBY policies. Maybe the policies aren't backwards, maybe people who think NIMBY is an insult are the backwards ones.
NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard. They want all the upside, but don't want to pay for what this will cost.
They want to keep private plane access exclusively so that the mere wealthy don’t intrude on the rich.
Citizens Against Bigger Planes were going to be called Citizens Raging Against Planes but they caught themselves.
Honestly this title feels like something that would be on half as interesting
Not that the two channels are related
They couldn't come up with any jokes for this topic, so it had to go on this channel.
@@Jehty_ Sam did not what to pay Amy to fly over to his home town. She is a girl and those are icky. leave them in New York.
i literally thought this was a half as interesting video damn
It’s about planes, they couldn’t resist the temptation of expounding and making it longer.
Private jets are not environmentally conscious. This is a collective of wealthy residents wanting to maintain exclusivity while calling it environmentalism.
The heavier the airplane…. The more gas it burns. Therefore smaller jets are no more polluting than large jets. So your comment is moronic.
So, a day ending in Y.
@@jasoncrandall. Not really. An airline will cram as many passengers as it can into a Commercial fight so the # of people moved per pound of fuel used is lower
It’s like comparing a bus to a limo a limo will use less fuel but only move a fraction of the people
Per capita figures matter
The rich can afford carbon offsets
@@stephenandersen4625 so you take the bus everywhere you go? You believe every travel experience should be to cram as many humans into one moving object as possible? To save the planet? The heavier the airplane…. The more fuel it burns to propel itself through space and the slower it goes. The lighter the airplane…. The less fuel it burns and the faster it goes and the higher it can climb. It’s just physics. Hope you answer my questions.
It seems pretty simple to me. If Aspen wants to limit large aircraft, they need to pay for upkeep themselves. If they want federal funding, they need to accept the strings that come with it.
I used to work for SkyWest and if you were working a flight that went into Aspen or connected thru Aspen, you were almost guaranteed the flight would be cancelled or extremely delayed. The approach was like threading a needle. If you want a great flight for a ski vacation, go to Salt Lake or Jackson Hole
Sounds like Golden Cavier problems...
How can talking about lowering per-passenger emissions and the addition of larger private jets really be in the same argument? Don't get me wrong I love GA but when you see a multi engine jet pull up and one passenger step out cant help to think it is a bit excessive
Lowering per-passenger emissions and the addition of larger private jets _aren't_ the same argument.
Moving the runway would allow larger _commercial_ jets, such as the 737, which produce much less emissions per passenger than the CRJ-700.
The "larger private jets" argument is because big land developers own big private jets, and the residents of Aspen want to keep them out (because, you know, big land developers can't fly commercial, or just drive /s).
Because the environmental arguements coming from the opposition side aren't genuine. They're a left-leaning politically palatable NIMBY tactic.
The ramp is already crowded with private jets and I’d much rather see a g650 that is quieter and has newer engine tech than an old falcon etc. and the in service numbers of large private jets that do not align well with community goals is not very high.
@@HiddenWindshield the people who would be flying big private jets into Aspen aren't big land developers (OK a few would be). They are billionaires, titans of industry, celebrities, and royalty.
@@dzapper7 Yes, I know. I wasn't giving my own opinion there, I was explaining what the residents of Aspen think (at least, according to this video). So, if you wish to correct someone, you should direct your comment toward Aspen, not to me.
✅ Airplanes
✅ Logistics
✅ Ski-town Colorado
Yep, it's a Wendover video.
does sam make so many videos about ski town colorado because he lives there, or does he live there because he wants to make so many videos about ski town colorado 🤯
The Wendover Trifecta
Aeroplanes*
@@eatbutterhe lives in Colorado (I think Fort Collins to be more precise)
@@kylewitter2806 No he lives in Aspen
The rich people lobbying for smaller planes don't want too many tourists at their favourite ski resorts 😂
yeah cause the poor's just ruin it
I think you haven't seen the prices of anything in Aspen.
A 1-day pass at one resort and associated fees exceeds $1500.
I doubt they aren't worried about some flood of ordinary people ruining some of the highest demand (thus, cost) slopes in the word. 😂
Clearly Wendover did a poor job articulating who is fighting for what: The ultra-rich are fighting _for_ the expansion so they can fly larger private jets in, the "poor" community members are _against_ the expansion because we don't want more _private_ aircraft traffic.
This is similar to the situation at Toronto's Billy Bishop Airport (City Centre Island Airport...CYTZ).
A 200m bridge was cancelled, runway extension was stopped, and jets are banned (A220 was proposed. "NO JETS" because they're too loud, but Piaggio P.180 is allowed)
It's a NIMBY problem, and a bureaucratic nightmare, but it's so popular that it flourishes despite the limitations.
What's funny is that the A220 which porter was planning to fly out of there is considerably quieter than the Dash is already flying there
The A220 is absolutely perfect forthis airport. Fully agree, that it's a prime example of NIMBY-ism and virtue signaling. They can GTFOH with all the BS.
@@S1baarExactly right! Modern jets are VERY quiet. The reason for banning jets is BS. I've seen a Medevac jet come and go from YYZ, and could barely hear it from the city noise. (Medevac are exempt)
And there's a overground highway (Gardiner Expressway) going through the downtown core yet the apartments only complain about airport noise
@@andrewleung5049 They complain about the Gardiner Expressway too. The current plan is to realign the eastern section north (closer to the rail), but they want to tear it all down.
Let's take the sub-1% of Americans who own property in Aspen and look at what they're really saying:
"We live here, we just don't want you to live here. Also, we demand greener jets but if we travel we'll just take our own "
It's mostly owned by commercial property conglomerates. In terms of permanent residents, it's sub .00005% of Americans unless you count the fact that any index investment will cover a great deal of the retail and resort property just because of the companies involved. Sub 1% doesn't sound inclusive considering the tiny fraction in reality. The real issue is Sam has stopped making videos for RUclips and now is pretty much just a lobbying platform for these insular communities in the Rockies to try and get the attention of the vast majority of us who will never even see Aspen in our lives. It's kinda silly. But I feel like I can see a pretty clear trail of high denomination cash connecting it, else why would he just stop trying to appeal to a wider audience anymore? Nothing's going down in price, RUclips moves lightning fast, and nebula is not likely to keep up the growth demanded to finance this stuff, because wendover and hai aren't and when you are sponsoring one company with the other, they are both reliant on what? All roads lead to Rome.
@@philbert006You're fucking insane lol. "Yeah the cabal of billionaires is paying Sam from Wendover to make NIMBY propaganda" how about take your meds?
They don't live there, they vacation there.
Don't forget that they need folks to clean their toilets, but Those People can't afford to live anywhere near and have to commute from Glenwood or further ☹
That really isn't a problem. Even the 1% can't afford to live in Aspen or Vail.
Just call it what it is.
Rich people don't want us 'normies' having an easier time visiting.
Well, yeah. Go to vail and leave us alone 😂
Can you imagine being so rich that the most pressing issue in your life is arguing over how big your airport should be to prevent too many people outside the 1% from visiting?
@@DalerMehndiDeekSheik as a pilot myself and Aspen resident, I want to expand it. Mainly because I like planes, I’m a nerd. The airport isn’t gonna limit the outsiders of 1% from coming or going, the housing cost already do that.
but if its expanded, they can fly their bigger private jets in... so they'd want it expanded?
Visiting? I live in my car under the flight path for this airport. They don't want us _living_ there. I actually may be having to leave because I can't find housing.
Aspen.....
"So you're telling me there's a chance"
It's the classic Not-In-My-Backyard story. I bet they don't think twice about flying into LAX or New York and what the neighbors might think about it there. An extra delay for the 300+ person flight to Dallas because of their small, pesky airplanes clogging up the runway? So be it. But please, keep sending the cheques productive cities of America!
A lot of tiny violins playing here...
seriously.. it was just intended as a trigger flaunting their elitism. they dont care about anything honestly. oh wait, nevermind this is a completely narcissistic self-centered entitled person's concern here. I apologize.. they care very much.
Oh no, first world woes befall the elite skiing community?
Right 😂😂
Will someone think of the billionaires?!
@@rubiconnn
They'll just have to keep flying in on their private planes.
right? Aspen is the 0.1% Those mfs own football teams
@@cachecow Yeah but now they can't fly their bigger private planes there :(
This has nothing to do with noise or crowding and everything to do with nimbys wanting to get their backyard private jet storage subsidized
omg could you imagine having to park at Colorado Springs and suffer through an hour long limo ride. We need to avoid the inhumanity of such terrors.
@@MrSterlingg It's a 4-5 hour drive from Colorado Springs in the winter, and you have to drive through Denver.
Went there about two weeks after the ski “season” ended and it was a GHOST TOWN”, this place literally exists for about 6 months a year…
Loved it!!!!
So if I'm understanding correctly, the plan is to get around the FAA's restrictions on discriminating against plane type by simply continuing to make it so unsafe for certain plane types that the FAA is forced to disallow them? There's no way that ends well...
All Wendover videos ends.
Like.
This.
Like 👏🏻
This 👏🏻
Buckle up for an essay, apologies in advance. Aspen resident here, who has watched this play out firsthand over many years. It is interesting to read the comments as I think a lot of viewers actually have the dynamic completely backwards. Typically, I would understand an outsider’s expectation to be that the “NIMBY” coalition is made up of the wealthiest and most elite. However, if you talk to local residents, attend local government seminars/public commentary, and read letters to the editor in the local newspaper, you will find it is quite the opposite. Generally speaking, the true “locals” in Aspen (not many remain as they are increasingly priced out) are vehemently against the expansion of the airport. They moved to Aspen to get away from the hustle and bustle of normal city life and to spend most of their free time in nature. They live in very humble housing. They are not traveling or using the airport frequently because they cannot afford it - they moved to Aspen to spend time here, not to jet set around the world with Aspen as their home base.
Airport noise sounds like a typical complaint of the 1% but they are not the ones complaining in this instance. The billionaires do not live in Aspen. They fly in for weekend festivals, fundraisers, and New Year’s Eve parties and fly back to NYC, California, Texas, or Florida. They do not care about their “carbon footprint”. They care about their own convenience and ensuring that they will be able to sell their vacation home at a profit to the next billionaire at the drop of a hat if needed. As such, the billionaires, hundred-millionaires, and the corporate interest who owns the ski resort/fine dining/luxury hotels (now called Aspen One, owned by the billionaire Crown family) are pushing hard for the airport expansion. The big money is not NIMBY in this case. The big money is funding the ad campaigns which urge the public to support the bigger airport for “a cleaner and quieter future” despite having presented zero empirical evidence over the past ~4 years that the expansion would lead to any reduction in noise or air pollution. You can see this unfolding live in the pro-expansion letters to the editor in the local paper; more often than not, if you look up the letter writer on LinkedIn, you will find they are a managing partner of a real estate developer, private equity firm, or venture capital firm (search Greg Goldfarb of Summit Partners or Evan Marks of Alben Asset Management as examples of recent “concerned citizen” writers). These people rarely actually call Aspen their home. It is just a 2nd (or 3rd) vacation home which they desire to fly in and out of at utmost ease for a total of a few weeks per year. The newer, larger private aircraft on the market today are not permitted to land with Aspen’s current wingspan restriction. That means some of these billionaire homeowners must charter smaller jets to visit their vacation home in Aspen rather than take the Gulfstream 650 they already own. The corporate interests (Aspen One) want to expand the offerings of expensive “public” private charters to Aspen, ala Aero or XO Jet with higher capacity planes. Or better yet, they want to start that service themselves. It truly feels like a wolf in sheep’s clothing with respect to public messaging. So why do they need they public support of the local Aspenite if they have all the money? Because the billionaires are not actually Aspen residents - they themselves cannot vote on local issues! They need to coerce the locals that the expansion is in the best interest of the community.
You can tell that I’m largely against expansion because I don’t believe this benefits the average local, who is neither a billionaire nor a millionaire. And for those who think this will vastly increase commercial air access to the general public, think again. Commercial aviation accounted for just 17% of all Aspen airport traffic in 2022 (meaning 83% was private planes). Bigger commercial planes servicing an expanded airport could carry more people, yes, but that does not change the fact that the average hotel room rate in Aspen is over $1,000/night, the average dinner is over $150/person, and a single-day ski pass is $265 this coming winter season. Bigger planes would not suddenly open Aspen up to the masses, just more of the 1-2%.
If you are someone who is in favor of more government involvement, then I can understand your support of the FAA and the Aspen airport coalition having sole power over the decision. I tend to believe that voters should be able to decide on the outcome of such a major decision in their own town. I also believe that if you want less government involvement like I do, you should not be able rely on federal funding. This airport could fund its own yearly maintenance and improvements multiple times over - the revenue from fuel sales and landing/parking fees alone (these are currently privatized by an operator) are enormous! A small, regional airport should not be allowed to rely on federal tax dollars, nor should it even rely heavily on local voter tax dollars when 83% of the use is attributable to out of town billionaire visitors with non-Colorado tax status. This airport was not originally built to service anything larger than a handful of turboprops per day based on its location and proximity to the urban center, just 2 miles away. If I had any say, the airport would be eliminated in favor of moving air traffic down valley to a bigger, better Rifle airport where landing is far less dangerous, land is cheaper/flatter/more plentiful, and surrounding residents are sparse. Public transport from Aspen to an airport down valley would be a great investment.
Here’s the deal. A larger airport is logical. Taxpayers fund your winter wonderland. If you want a smaller crappier airport, you pay.
You should clarify you only speak for some locals and certainly not a vast majority. I've lived in the area for 20 years and it's very split down the middle. I'm middle class and firmly believe it's in the best interest to move it. I'm not going to post an essay but here the one important thing to know is that Aspen will loose commercial service if it is not moved. The CRJ700 IS being retired next year for United (contract is over) and American and Delta are likely to follow in the next few. As a local, that would be devastating. Eagle County is no cheaper then Aspen and tends to be more expensive.
Also side note, anyone that has moved to Aspen since the ski areas have been built know that it's been a playground for the rich. This isn't anything new not even remotely. The true locals? Ones that have been here for generations. Sincerely awesome people that are tired of everyone always complaining about something. (I've talked to them, real down to earth people.) All of us since then? We are the new locals so let's not pretend we aren't part of the problem.
Of course you are right that I can’t speak for everyone but that is my overwhelming experience. And yes, I have family ties to the valley well before the ski tourism industry took off. My commentary was less about the logistics of the airport’s future and more about an outsider’s perception of incentives - particularly the perception that all of the wealthy folks are against changing the airport, which is simply false if you dig into the money behind the organizations. Sure, we are all part of the tourism “problem” in some way. But if you move to Aspen with expectations of flying regularly around the country with the same ease that you would in a larger city, I would say your expectations are unrealistic and that you are a bigger part of the “problem”. I see that you are a plane enthusiast by your profile. No hate, to each their own, but people interested in planes, tracking flights, etc are almost always in favor of newer and bigger as it makes their hobby more interesting. I believe expansion is going to happen one way or another as Aspen is too much of a cash cow to too many parties for it to fail, I am just trying to set the record straight on incentives. The coordinated and well-funded campaign to expand is not solely “looking out” for locals’ travel options or the environment…and I really dislike naivety.
Wow, thank you so much. This was super insightful! As I was watching the video, I was forming an analysis based off of class structure, and who would benefit the most from each of the plans. As soon as I heard that business execs were supporting the expansion, it was very clear to me that the expansion was the plan that would benefit the ruling class the most. Reading all these comments about Nimby’s. I was starting to second-guess myself and question my analysis. So I was so glad when I found your comment. It rooted me back in reality. Thank you comrade!
@JonTylerWallace98 Oh, there is definitely many interest involved no doubt at the local level. At the federal level? I'm sure there is some lobbying involved but ultimately the FAA is just doing their job. They probably should of never gave Aspen the exemption to begin with but now here we are.
Fair game to call out my aviation interest. But that's not what sways my opinion. I just want options when it comes to flying. Is Aspen more expensive then Denver? Yes, but when you figure in gas and parking you'd be shocked how close it is. There is a break even point where it is cheaper to fly local. The flight videos I have on my channel are simply from flights I take to see family or vacation trips. I don't plane spot or do anything recreational either so no benefit there. This isn't a hobby for me. I fly for the convenience and just take videos on the side. Not sure if that changes your opinion but just so you know.
Like I said, I'm a local with a vested interest because I see a future that we either sustain commercial flying or not. The ironic part is if the airport is downgraded ultimately all it will see afterwards is only private aviation and that certainly doesn't do anything for me or you.
>about airplanes
>about Colorado
>about skiing villages
This is the most Sam video there is here
literally 😭
It's the same basic layout as Innsbruck in Austria. Aspen is a regional airport under FAA regulations and you have to expand on the airport infrastructure because it has a level 5 runway ✈️
Back in the early 1970s, I flew from Denver to Aspen on Aspen Airways (long gone). The aircraft was a (sort of) pressurized DC3. The jury rigged pressurization seals failed with a loud pop and a hiss about five miles from the Aspen airport. I didn't exactly kiss the ground when we landed, but I considered it. The flight was in June. The thought of flying that route in the Winter... uh, no. But it was fun to fly on what must have been one of the last DC3s still in US scheduled passenger service and we certainly got a close up view of the peaks.
DC-3's weren't pressurized. The first Douglas airliner that was pressurized was the DC-6. You were probably flying in a Convair 340 or 440. Aspen's fleet was pretty much exclusively Convairs in the 70's
@@dzapper7 Thanks for setting me straight! 🙂
The phrase you’re looking for in the descent to the airport is ° (degrees) not % (percent). Applying the percent principle to the 360° angles planes would be pitched down to meet a 21.6° angle of descent. Great video though, very informative.
It's Aspen. If the airport ends up federally abandoned, a billionaire will buy it.
And make it a private airport which requires permission to land.
if a billionare bought it, at least then noone could object to them making the airport better
Even if it's privately owned, it still has to receive clearance and approval from the FAA, which they are saying they won't give. Making it private doesn't change that, nor would being privately owned change the local codes for changing it.
@TheWizardGamez FAA still has final say on if it can be an airport, regardless of ownership.
and when it fails, file bankruptcy and let another billionaire have a shot at it.
“Samsonite! Man, I was _wayy_ off!” 😂🤦🏻♂️
I don't think I've ever seen a case of NIMBYism which didn't leave me despising the NIMBYs.
It's a ski resort, with basically the only people actually living there being those who own it. If they want to limit their customer base.... That's their problem...
The issue is more along the lines of them getting government money, that you pay taxes for, in order to subsidize some rich guy's vacation.
But they won't be... So, that's fine.
Well said. If they want it they will get it, but thankfully they don't want it
They will. The only point to this was to make normal people wince in disgust and stay away. The airport will be private. And they will need the bigger planes anyway. To fly in all the "help" they will need tagging along.
You aren't paying for it.
Aspen types pay the hefty share of taxes received federally. 😂
@@MrSterlingg notv even that. Normal people cannot afford buying any thing in Aspen. Shops in Aspen cannot afford to cater to normal people goven the limited space and astronomical prices.
Technically, Delta could operate the mainline 717 in as its wingspan is only 93ft! Though, it may not have the performance overhead for the terrain.
I don't think the 717 can take off and avoid the mountains safely during an emergency abort.
Delta's 717's are planned to be replaced by A220s by next year, which is in the same class as the 737, wingspan-wise. It has twice the thrust as the 717.
@@nitehawk86Delta’s 717 retirement actually got pushed back until 2030
Kona has been having similar runway problems, and also is a single runway airport. It is far larger however as 777s regularly serve Kona.
great
01:17 Giggity
Beat me to it 😂😂😂
The irony of most NIMBYs are that their houses were once opposed by the NIMBYs before them. I’ve got mine-screw you.
A few years ago I organized a conference in Aspen and met one of the speakers at the airport. I was surprised that he arrived on a commercial jet. I expected it to be a prop plane I’ve flown on into smaller airports or on short flights.
One time i was in Aspen, flying out, and then the sun set, the winds that blew down from the mountains were so great we had to wait 2 hours.
so?
@@MrSterlinggthat's another reason to not increase air traffic because of the approach and take off hazards. More traffic will result in more development in the area creating a larger carbon footprint in the area which will easily offset the current footprint created by the current aircraft and vehicle and every day emissions of the small population of residents living there. Boise Idaho has a issue with smog because of its location at the foot of the mountains. It looks like they would have the same problem with a larger population.
Sam really wants his local airport expanded
🤣🤣🤣
my dumbass thought they would push it somewhere
"We should take *Aspen-Pitken County Airport* and push it somewhere else"
As Lloyd Christmas says, "A place where the beer flows like wine. Where beautiful women instinctively flock like the salmon of Capistrano. I'm talking about a little place called Aspen."
I don't know Lloyd. The French are assholes.
I was looking for one of these comments. Thank you
Edit: Lloyd also calls it "Some place warm"
@@silentf0e love that movie. The scene with the hostage taker and the briefcase full of IOU's kills me every time.
@@oliverjumelle I've had it with this dump!
We've got no food, we've got no jobs, our pets heads are falling off!
Samsonite, I was way off.
Overall an informative piece. A minor point: typically paving projects (i.e., repairing the runway) aren’t done in the winter due to low temperatures. So emergency repairs might close the runway during the ski season, but probably not full scale runway rebuilding. Also, if tourists on private jets can’t land at Aspen, they typically land at Rifle (KRIL). So the folks with $$$ are still going to get to have their skiing vacation. On another note, the Aspen airspace and the airport ramp is exceptionally busy, even in the summer - pilots definitely need to bring their A game. A plan that would reduce the number of aircraft (e.g., using planes with more seats to allow fewer planes to move the same number of pax) could make the airspace and ramp less busy and therefore safer.
Current E175 driver at SkyWest, currently flying into EGE which is already a big struggle bus on this plane due to poor single engine performance at altitude. I start flying this thing to ASE in December and let me tell you guys: we are so cooked.
Ben or Devon orrr?
@@gustafpeyronNice try FAA
It’s not percents for a descent, but rather an angle in degrees.
Percent is just another unit for angle, it can be converted into degrees.
@@breckr1121 Most airports have glide paths between 2 and 4 degrees. The video mistakenly said this airport's descent rate was 6 percent, but should have said 6 degrees, which is about 10.5%.
@@breckr1121 yeah, but the numbers he mentions are definitely degrees. d-TPP “INSTRUMENT TAKEOFF OR APPROACH PROCEDURE CHARTS RATE OF CLIMB/DESCENT TABLE” has degrees and percents. But I think he was referring to the fact that a regular approach plate or VASI is 3 degrees and an instrument approach into Aspen calls for 6.59 glidepath angle. 3 degrees is 5.27% and It would be more than 9% for 6.59 degree glide path.
omg all of you aeronautical fact checkers and number crunchers.. go donate your time to mentoring a disadvantaged kid with a dream of becoming a pilot or something. Why am I wasting time here? The mindblowing ignorance of real issues. I usually don't rubberneck when I am passing by a dumpster fire. These comments are crazy flavored icing on the cake of insanity this non-issue is.
Colorado has a surprising amount of private runways. We even have a neighborhood with a private runway. I am not kidding. It's like 10 or so minutes east of Lochbuie and Brighton. There's like 50 or so houses that almost all of them are connected to it by long ass taxiways. There are a handful of houses that don't have the land to be attached to a taxiway and are 30% of the price of all the other houses.
Interesting! We have a similar situation in Erie, Colorado with a local airport connecting to homes with private airplane hangars. I am happy to see those airplane owners and home owners having their fun so long as they are not voting for zero carbon policies. (If they truly believe that carbon emissions will destroy the Earth in six years, then they should be living in tents and not driving or flying anything.)
As for the folks in Aspen, I wish them the best!
NIMNY, but eith airplanes. This is outside of my tax bracket.
"If it suits our wants, we will kick you out and take over your business". What a message that would send to businesses wanting to operate in Aspen. I think that was tried unsuccessfully in Venezuela.
Though I don't know the specific infrastructure of the Aspen area, it seems this impasse may make the case for more passenger rail and less reliance on air travel. If we put as much public and private sector support into trains as we do planes and airports we might be able to get everyone wishing to go to places like Aspen there just as fast and with far less pollution.
I just watched the Pilot Debrief video about the aspen crash from 2014. Quite a challenging airport to use.
ok
I flew the Q400 into here from early 2013 until late 2015. Even on a hot summer day we could depart full and still have the single engine performance if needed.
And - on arrival we could circle to 33 which was crazy
wow
Wendover will make anything about anything. Literally a great background noise at this point. I have never even been to Aspen but after watching this video, i care nothing. Yet, I see a wendover video and i click it. Love this.
Once i realized that you were from crested butte, now i understand why you cover Colorado topics so much
I tend to automatically click on all new Wendover releases regardless of subject, because they always find an intriguing angle to stories that don't necessarily have my interest. This time though, I was two-thirds of the way in and it suddenly hit me: I don't care at all how this plays out, who is right or who wins this argument.
I lasted almost 5 minutes. There are 15 more and I can't fathom what they contain. The point is pretty well covered by minute 2 :"rich people don't like poors."
That is probably a healthy attitude for most things.
I don't know if 80 feet would be able to pick up an airport, sounds like you would need a whole army of boots on the ground.
I'm a homosexual
I'm a homosexual
You'd be surprise. SFO (San Francisco International Airport) wanted to move apart the two runways by a couple of hundred feet due to fog issue. The environmentalists declare that it will destroy the 'wetland' next to the runways, never mind that those 'wetland' were made by the creation of the runways in the first place.
Not the entire airport you silly. just pick up the runway. it is made for feet. it's a runway after all.
All you need to do is roll up the runway and roll it over to the new spot.
Have you seen those videos of Amish communities moving houses? I think 40 people is plenty
Many wealthy places have worked to keep out various modes of public transportation, and we all know why. They don't want to have to look at or interact with individuals at lower levels of the wealth spectrum. Then they lament that "nobody wants to work" because they've essentially walled out the local workforce.
You're incorrect. Aspen is so expensive that less wealthy people who go there are sorely disappointed.
LOVE THE VIDEO! I cannot wait to fly to Aspen someday!
Cheers 🥂 great video Sam!
This just reminds me how much I miss the single row side on MD-80's for cross country trips back in the day. The more we get crammed in like cattle, the more I want to be sedated and put in the cargo hold.
get a private jet, duh. makes no sense why everyone doesn't do it. so they can whine about crap like this when they get back home from voting for a traitorous murderer
Also, Aspen sucks down jet fuel to the tune of 50,000 to 75,000 gallons a DAY during peak season. That's 8 to 10 truck loads. Eagle and Gypsum also have unleaded spikes because that's where most of the people who work in Aspen commute from. Aspen's carbon footprint is already much much much bigger than any town of equal size. The only place that can come close to competing is Eagle Airport because that's where the larger planes have to land. Then all those people rent Escalades and drive to Aspen.
A quick google search has shown me that Aspen is a hair's breadth from Denver, and already has a railway line running past to the north.
Just run a train to Aspen?
If it really is a popular tourist destination then trains can transport thousands of people cheaply, quietly, efficiently, and with minimal spatial impact to the locals. Tourist and ski trains are everywhere in Europe. Even here in Australia we have railways branching into mountainous terrain to serve communities near our big cities (Adelaide's Belair line, Sydney's Blue Mountains Line, and Melbourne's Belgrave line, to name a couple off the top of my head.)
Nobody uses trains in this country and that’s basically as good as just not having access outside of driving. Getting a train is really out of the way and slower than driving; people should be able to fly in.
@@christianmoore7109Self-fulling prophecy.
Planes have the disadvantages of massive carbon emissions, noise pollution, and millions in wasted taxes.
Trains are cheaper than cars and planes, are safer than cars, and are better for tourists to be able to travel stress-free. There's no real reason why trains should be slower than driving with the right investments.
They do want tourist, but only the ones that could buy their private train.
there is a train currently that goes through the mountains already. it just doesn’t stop at aspen, it stops 30 mins away in glenwood springs which is then accessible by bus into aspen. but that’s not issue. it’s aspens super wealthy not wanting more people to access the town.
@gotmilk20091 Same with my town. There was a proposal to extend the metropolitan rail network to where I live, but the rich nimbys who've never caught a train in their life didn't want it. So, now I'm stuck paying thousands for a car I don't want. Yes, I am trying to move, but getting a job with a living wage is hard these days.
If they're going to perform an upgrade, I'd say let's just go with the county plan and do the thing. All a refusal to relocate the runway will do is create an even more restrictive bottleneck as the area continues to grow and prevent the airport from receiving federal funding.
I rode at Snowmass long before boards were allowed on Ajax, and it's definitely some of the best terrain on the planet. They can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned, egalitarian access to certain mountains is a nice idea but we have a lot of other problems to solve before easing commercial access to luxury ski resorts.
Edit: I didn't realize I'd never skied Snowmass till now, only the other 3 until they allowed snowboarding as well.
@1:05 - "Passive solar heating" What, like windows and skylights? Scintillating.
You set the architecture up with certain angles in mind so during the summer the windows are shaded and during the winter the sun is coming in through them. Passive heating in winter and limiting unwanted solar gain during summer.
They could also use the sun to to heat water
Revolutionary.
As someone whose town (by the beach, not mountains) was utterly destroyed by over-dense tourism to the point where there is literally no school district left and few residential homes still existing, I'd tell residents to do everything they can to prevent an influx. It's spectacular if you own real estate. It's horrible if you live somewhere you like and want to stay there and see your children live there.
LETS GOO NEW WENDOVER VIDEO ON A WEEKDAY I CAN PROCRASTINATE AT WORK RAAA 🇺🇸 🦅
The Fairy Rotodyne would have been perfect for Aspen.
It must be stressful to land a 737 with that little margin for error
I'm a homosexual
which is why there shouldn't be an airport
The most difficult times for the Aspen airport are hot summer days, where the density altitude can prevent nearly all jet aircraft takeoffs. Aspen has some awesome paragliding and hang-gliding sites, and more than once I've flown into Aspen only to be unable to leave, stuck waiting for a suitable takeoff window.
A level 8 runway to level 9 runway your basic aircraft like the 737 Max Series, The Embraer E-195, Small Airbus aircraft and Gulfstream takeoff on no greater than a level 9 runway 🛫 ✈️ 🛬
Rich people can dig deep into their pockets and pay to replace the runway themselves. $10,000 per resident should cover it.
Who told you adding background music was an improvement to your delivery quality - because it's NOT!
I feel bad for the average residents of Aspen. Imo the feds should just close the airport until everything is brought to a higher level of safety. Let the voters of Aspen choose whether the loss of tourism is worth staying with the current system.
That sounds about right.
This comment thread seems littered with a similar misunderstanding, let me clarify something: it's the ultra-rich lobbying _for_ the runway expansion so they can fly Gulfstream 650's in. It's the local "poor" people lobbying _against_ the runway expansion because we already have more than enough entitled people to deal with. The NIMBY themed comments all have it exactly backwards.
I have skied at Aspen three times. The airport provided no part of my journey. I drove from Oregon as part of a many-ski-area trip. Whether the airport expands, contracts, or closes probably has no effect on my future plans.
Why is there no apparent consideration to providing bus service from Salt Lake City or Jackson Hole? That seems a fairly obvious solution, especially during challenging weather. But maybe they don't have that?
Wendover Productions: the world's leading supplier of videos about Aspen, Colorado, and other ski towns
I've never been to Aspen and kind of even despise the town now. You can thank them for it.
You haven't done a video about logistics, airplanes, or Colorado is a while. I was getting concerned. Oddly extremely entertaining as always.
So what I hear is: Build a train to a larger airport.
0:01 I love watching this channel so my reaction when you showed the 737 that my friends dad is the pilot of and that she regularly flies on 😮
1:30 Love the Hunter S. Thompson nod :)
The video said that the wingspan limitation of 95ft excludes "all" of American, United, and Delta's mainline fleet. Technically, Delta operates the Boeing 717 as a mainline aircraft, which has a wingspan of 93.4 feet.
E175 with the winglets have a wingspan of 94ft 2in, so that’s a good option too.