Report Inappropriate Comments

I don't mean to sound naïve or disingenuous, but is it obvious that the only path to a "great" airport is a path to a "growing" airport? There are two points here. First, if were to you assume we will never add any passengers or flights, you could still make the airport more efficient, a better experience for passengers, etc. You don't need to be biggest to be best, and in many ways the appeal of TF Green is its small size and relative simplicity. We have been chasing more passengers and more flights for over a decade, and we have been losing. When do we start questioning the strategy, rather than the implementation? Second, people use airports when they (a) travel to and from a place for business, and (b) have money for personal travel. Airports don't lead economies, they respond to them. We should position our airport to nimbly react to economic changes -- to expand quickly and appropriately as needed. And we are well-situated to do that, from the terminal to the parking to the fancy skybridge to the rail connection to the runway expansion. But that does not mean we need to expand when there is no need -- we should instead focus on being efficient for the need we have, and ready for change as the need changes. The recent Condor example is telling -- when Condor came in, the news was all about how we should grow to be the next international airport. Now Condor is gone. That is OK, because we are flexible. Let's not decide to grow a new international wing on the hope of new business -- let's just be ready to adapt if and when we do see that increase come our way.