Harriet Jones
Of all the “new normals” that the pandemic brought us, one
that stubbornly continues to linger is the downturn in business travel.
For a time while COVID was at its height, in-person
meetings, once seen as essential, were entirely replaced by the ubiquitous
video conference. And in the years since, many companies have continued to
realize the savings from the ability to hop on a laptop rather than a plane to
connect with both colleagues and clients.
Kevin Dillon, executive director of the Connecticut Airport
Authority (CAA), said 2023 was a year of continued recovery for air travel in
general, and at the state’s largest hub, Bradley International Airport.
“We captured back a
lot
of
our
pre-pandemic
traffic,” he said. “But if
you
look
at
where
we’re at right now, on
any
given
day
we’re still about 5% to
7%
below
where
we
were
pre-pandemic,
and a
good
portion
of
that
is
related
to
this
business
travel
component.”
Overall passenger traffic at Bradley Airport, from January
2023 through November 2023, was up 8.1% from 2022, but 7% behind pre-pandemic
2019, according to CAA data.
A survey of employers released in 2023 by Deloitte did show
growth in the sector, and predicted that business travel could see full
recovery to pre-pandemic levels by late 2024.
But the same survey showed that many companies are
continuing to eye their travel budget as a place where they can cut costs and
increase sustainability by reducing employee trips.
When travel does happen these days, it’s more often short
range — managers are approving trips within driving distance rather than
shelling out for flights.
“We have felt all
along
that
despite
the
fact
that
business
travel
across
the
board
was
down
during
the
pandemic,
those
companies
that
have
external
customers
would
have
to
return
to
business
travel,” said Dillon.
“But it’s the
intra-company
travel
— for example, a company
that’s headquartered here in Connecticut,
but
has
operations
on
the
West
Coast
— are their employees going
to
travel
to
interact
with
their
peers,
or
are
they
going
to
continue
to
do
that
via
Zoom
and
other
platforms?” he said. “That, I think,
is
the
big
question.”
Private aviation’s appeal
The recent unreliability of the airline industry in general
has been a drag on business travel’s recovery, experts said.
“Their schedules haven’t kept up, their reliability hasn’t kept up,” said Doug Gollan, who writes about the private aviation
industry. “There are all sorts of different
issues
impacting
airline service.”
“With flights booked to the gills, if you miss your connection at a hub or your flight is canceled, it’s not arriving at your destination an hour later, it’s ‘we can’t get you there till the next day.’”
Gollan runs a subscription database that shows his clients flexible ways to access travel by private jet, including memberships, charters and jet cards that allow companies to buy a certain number of flying hours.
He said of the subscribers to his service who are just
starting to consider their options, “over 60% of them say the
reason
that
they’re looking to fly privately is a
bad
airline
service.”
Private jet use had seen a steady rise in the decade before
the pandemic. In the last three years, that increase has been more dramatic.
By some accounts, overall private jet use in the U.S. has
increased by 20% over 2019 levels.
Gollan said more company executives began to realize the
convenience of private aviation during the pandemic.
“Time is money,” he said.
That’s led to what Gollan calls “situational use” of private jet
travel by companies. “If there’s two things
private
aviation
does,
it
saves
you
time,
and there’s no such thing as
lost
baggage.”
The trend is observable even at a smaller commercial airport
like Bradley, which saw a 22.4% increase in private jet flights between 2000
and 2002.
The airport hosted 12,346 private flights in 2022, and
11,953 in 2023, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.
And those numbers may get a boost in the near future:
Bradley just announced a major deal with New York-based private jet service
company Sky Harbour to build a $30 million hangar complex at the airport.
The deal encompasses the construction of
five
private
hangars
that
will
include
lounge
and
office
space,
together
totaling
about
92,000
square feet.
Sky Harbour’s Chief Financial Officer Francisco Gonzalez said
the company’s interest in Hartford stems from a significant deficit of hangar
space for private aviation in the tri-state area.
“The business, in terms
of
demand
for
business
aviation,
continues
to
grow,” Gonzalez said. “And
where
do
you
put
all
these
planes?
Bradley is a great airport in
terms
of
its
location.”
Gonzalez said the makeup of the clientele at Sky Harbour’s
sites around the country varies widely, but he expects Bradley to house a
significant business presence, including “some corporate fleets who
right
now
may
have
their
planes
all
over
this
region.
They’re looking for a good, business-friendly
airport to consolidate their operations. And,
we
will
be
providing
them
with
the
opportunity
to
have
the
real
estate
that
they
need
to
accomplish
that.”
Regional shortage
Sky Harbour’s development will join fixed-base operators
Atlantic Aviation and Signature Aviation, which also host private jet
facilities at Bradley.
The CAA’s Dillon confirms that the shortage of
hangar
facilities
regionally
is benefitting not just Bradley.
“These are very expensive aircraft;
people want
them
inside
a
hangar
facility
versus
parked
on
a
ramp
area,” he said. “A lot of the activity that’s been brought to some
of
our
general
aviation
airports
— Waterbury-Oxford comes
to
mind
— is activity that was over
at
Teterboro
Airport
in New
York,
but
because
of
the
congestion
at
Teterboro
and
the
lack
of
hangar
space,
those aircraft have relocated.”
Waterbury-Oxford is also in the middle of an investment deal
with private aviation company Clay Lacy, which is building a new $40 million
full-service, fixed-base operator and corporate hangar facility. It is due to
open later this year.
Dillon said the expected relocation of private aircraft
attracted by the new investment at Bradley will be good for the local economy
all around.
And, while the dynamics may be changed and the improvement
is slow, he remains hopeful that a full recovery for business travel more
broadly remains in the cards.
Part of that confidence was reflected in the Connecticut
Airport Authority and MetroHartford Alliance recently announcing plans to
recruit a direct flight from Bradley International Airport to London, an effort
that will likely require a revenue guarantee from the state and strong backing
from the business community.
“We do meet with travel
managers
of
some
of
the
area’s largest employers, and I
think
they
have
indicated
that
business
travel
is
resuming,
that
in
2024
it’s going to continue to be
restored,” Dillon said.
State AG: Connecticut Port Authority ‘success fee’ to contractor was legal
Greg Smith
Attorney General William Tong on Tuesday announced his
office had closed a whistleblower investigation into the Connecticut Port
Authority and determined there was nothing illegal about the $523,000 “success
fee” paid to a contractor, Seabury Capital, whose co-founder was a former port
authority board member.
The investigation dates back to 2020, when the Connecticut
Auditors of Public Accounts received allegations from a whistleblower about
potentially improper and unethical conduct by port authority employees, board
members and a contractor, New York-based Seabury Capital, also known as Seabury PFRA, LLC. The
auditors reviewed the complaints and reported the findings to the attorney
general’s office, which in turn opened an investigation.
“Our investigation did not substantiate the whistleblower’s
allegations of impropriety regarding ‘success fees,’ but it did substantiate
allegations of unethical behavior, as well as develop evidence of multiple
alleged violations of both the Code of Ethics for Public Officials and the Code
of Ethics for Lobbyists,” Tong said in a statement.
In 2023, the Office of State Ethics determined Seabury, the
company hired by the port authority to find an operator for State Pier in New
London, violated the code of ethics for lobbyists by spending money on items
like food, drinks and overnight lodging between 2017 and 2019 for port
authority employees that included its former Executive Director Evan Matthews.
Seabury paid $20,000 to settle the violation with the Office of State Ethics.
Henry W. Juan, a former port authority board member and
Seabury managing director, paid a $18,500 fine in a settlement over allegations
he illegally lobbied the port authority. Juan did not admit any wrongdoing as
part of the settlement. In 2022, former port authority employee Andrew Lavigne
was fined $750 and suspended for two days for accepting tickets to a hockey
game.
Tong, in a statement, said the success fees paid to Seabury,
which were criticized as a potentially illegal “finder’s fee” by the State
Contracting Standards Board, were in fact payments contained in an agreement
between the port authority and Seabury. The $523,000 success fee was part of a
$700,000 payment to Seabury in 2020 for the work the company performed.
“Those success fee provisions were both legal and sanctioned
by the CPA Board of Directors,” Tong wrote. “The success fee provisions in the
Agreement were legal because, although the success fees could be considered
‘finders fees,’ they were compensation for the provision of ‘financial advisory
services,’ ” Tong wrote.
Aside from codes of ethics violations, the investigation did
not develop evidence of additional illegal conduct, Tong said in a statement.
“The agency tasked with enforcing Codes of Ethics violations
― namely, the Office of State Ethics ― did just that,” Tong said. “We thank the
OSE for its hard work and dedication to enforcing Connecticut’s ethics laws.”
The Connecticut Port Authority issued a statement after news
from the attorney general’s office: “While the CPA has no comment regarding the
AG’s press release, the CPA is proud of the professional administration of its
policies, procedures and financial management over the past few years, which
should give our citizen’s confidence that the foundation for future success is
in place.”
A spokeswoman for Gov. Ned Lamont deferred questions to
Tong.
Senate Republican Leader Kevin Kelly, R-Stratford, issued a
statement questioning the attorney general’s opinion.
“The work of the Attorney General and his team is
appreciated, and we thank the Office of State Ethics for enforcing our ethics
laws,” Kelly said in a statement. “However, this may require a closer look at
the legislative level. People on Main Street – working and middle class
families - view this situation as both unethical and improper. They want
accountability. A review of our state statutes in this area may be in order.”
Solar developer eyes Manchester forest near residential area for 7.8-acre facility
MANCHESTER — A solar farm developer petitioned the state
late last month to build a facility in Manchester's "rural
residential" zone.
California-based
TRITEC Americas hopes to install a solar array on 7.8 acres of vacant land
at 250 Carter St., bordering the cul-de-sac on Amanda Drive and a handful of
single-family homes on Blue Ridge Drive and Carter Street.
Residents of rural Bethany pushed back against a
similar proposal from TRITEC that would see a similar facility
installed on 6.5 acres of land, though the petition is still pending. Both
plans are significantly smaller than East
Windsor's contentious solar farms, billed as a way to help the state meet
Gov. Ned Lamont's goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2040.
TRITEC bills its proposed Manchester facility to the
Connecticut Siting Council in the same way in a narrative dated Jan. 24,
arguing in its petition that the solar panels would supply just under one
megawatt of "clean, carbon-free" electricity with no adverse
environmental effects.
The Siting Council has jurisdiction over infrastructure
projects across the state, including energy facilities and telecommunications
projects. The town of Manchester and its residents can comment on the proposed
solar farm, but the decision of whether to approve it ultimately lies with the
state.
The Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public
hearing on Feb. 21 to collect public comment on the proposed solar
facility.
Town assessor documents list 250 Carter St. as a privately
owned, 41.08-acre wooded lot. If approved, the developer would create a
7.8-acre clearing within the forested area for an array of 2,590 solar panels,
as well as the equipment needed to convert the energy and send electricity back
into the power grid. The "non-reflective" solar panels would be
surrounded by a chain-link fence and buffered from nearby houses by what would
remain of the tree line.
TRITEC said in addition to providing renewable energy, the
project would benefit the town through revenue from property and equipment
taxes, reduced air and water pollution from fossil fuel power plants, improved
power grid resiliency for homes near 250 Carter St., and potential
lowering of electricity costs.
TRITEC expects construction of the facility to take three to
four months after all state and local government approvals.
New Milford developer's plan for 107 townhouses raises traffic concerns: 'It’s a very narrow road'
NEW MILFORD – A proposal to build
107 townhouses on Pickett District Road has a few nearby residents
concerned about the project's potential impact on traffic and on their
properties.
“We’ve not had any activity all these years across the road
from this property,” said Keith Golembeski, whose mother, Annett Golembeski,
lives directly across the street from the proposed site. “And it’s a very
narrow road: 500 more cars added to it is not feasible. … I don’t have a
problem with the homes going there, but 500 cars per day is ridiculous to add
to a road that’s already not equipped to handle the volume of traffic.”
Flagstaff Investments of New Milford submitted a
special permit and site plan application to construct the 12-building townhouse
residential complex to the Zoning Commission in November. The
commission held a public hearing for the site plan application at its Jan. 23
meeting, and the hearing will continue at its Feb. 13 meeting.
The 13.4-acre vacant property at 240 Pickett District
Road is in the multiple residence district zone, according
to Town Planner Laura Regan’s summary of the project to the Zoning
Commission. Less than a mile from Lovers Leap State Park, there
are single-family residences across the street and to the north of the proposed
site as well as business and industrial zones, according to Paul Szymanski, who
represented Flagstaff Investments at the meeting.
The property includes the 5,900-square-foot remains of
a building foundation, Regan
said in her summary, which would be demolished to make way for the
development.
Each of the 12 buildings would have five to 12 townhouses of
about 1,700 square feet in size, including a garage, Regan said in her summary.
Each townhouse would have three floors, a 12-foot-by-22-foot garage and a
9-foot-wide driveway, she said.
Szymanski, president of the New Milford engineering firm Arthur H.
Howland & Associates, said the buildings would be set back several
hundred feet on the property, and the internal driveway would be laid out in a
loop for easy traffic circulation. The townhouses would all be market rate
housing, he said, but didn't confirm whether they would be rented or
owned. Regan confirmed the project was not an affordable housing
application, according
to the Zoning Commission's Jan. 23 meeting minutes.
The construction would cost $10 million, according to the
site plan application. Szymanski said he would like to start construction
this year and anticipates it would be a multiyear project, though he did not
say when the first townhouses would be completed.
'Bumping up right into our property line'
A few residents brought up safety concerns regarding the
proposed development at the Jan. 23 public hearing before the Zoning
Commission.
Annette Golembeski, who resides at 225 Pickett District
Road, said she has discussed the project with Szymanski many times on the
phone. She said she was not opposed to the project itself, but she had concerns
about potential traffic issues connected to the development.
“I see traffic on this road,” Golembeski said. “When you
have an accident on Route 7 (which runs parallel to Pickett District Road), the
traffic is unbelievable. We’re bumper-to-bumper-to-bumper. Can you imagine 500
cars coming down where they’re going to have an entrance and an exit?”
Matt
Oneglia, vice president of O&G Industries, shared concerns about the
project's proximity to the construction company’s industrial plant at 271 Danbury
Road, as well as whether the proposed development site would drain
onto O&G's property.
“You’re bumping up right into our property line, where you
have potential housing right next to an asphalt plant,” he said.
Leigh Haeger, who resides at 229 Pickett District Road, said
he’s “probably going to be the most directly impacted by this condo because the
driveway is going to come out right across from my garage.”
“I think it was around 30 years ago the town took away some
of my yard, so my driveway is only 14 feet long,” Haeger said. “It’s already
hard to get out of my driveway with traffic in both directions. … If it ends up
being a really big problem, I’m going to have to move my driveway to the front
yard.”
Haeger also asked whether speed bumps could be added to slow
cars near the entrance to the proposed complex.
The proposed project also calls for installing water, sewer,
electrical and communication utilities; a stormwater management system;
and sight lighting and landscaping, according to Regan’s summary.
A total of 214 parking spaces are also proposed, according to the
site plan application. Access would be provided through a single
driveway with one travel lane in each direction, according to Regan’s
summary.