Dear Editor:

Re:    Billy Bishop Airport

The CEO of our local hospital, Gary Sims, recently wrote to city council in support of keeping the airport open.  This is my open reply to Mr. Sims:


Thank you for your letter, Mr. Sims.  I respond as follows:

I am willing to consider that in very rare instances, the availability of Billy Bishop Airport may “save a life”, to use your dramatic and unfortunate language.  That said, I am aware of no supporting studies to back up that claim and I don’t particularly care for an anecdotal approach to health care.

I would like some coherent, actual historical data.  That data would have to show:

i)    that in inclement weather, fixed wing flights are strongly preferable to helicopter flights;
ii)    that in fact, we often have weather that is too poor for helicopters but suitable for fixed wing aircraft;  
iii)    that, if fixed wing are in fact preferred, use of the Wiarton Airport rather than Billy Bishop would jeopardize lives (not just cause additional nursing time); and
iv)    that, even if fixed wing at Billy Bishop is preferred to that at Wiarton,  fixed wing would be more of an actual life saver than land transport.

That data would have to show an actual risk to life on a more than marginal basis.  After all, one cannot justify the costs of an airport to guard against the tiniest of health risks. Cost benefit analysis is a staple of all budgeting, including your own, I assume.  (For instance, for cost reasons, your local cardiac care does not include angioplasty and doubtless that deficit has cost lives in the past.  But no one complains; they understand that such is the cost of living in a largely rural area.)

Even if closing the airport correlates to a non-trivial health risk as proven by actual data, I don’t understand how that imposes a duty on the ratepayers of the city to maintain an airport. I don’t see running the airport as any more relevant to the core functions of our city than paying for spent nuclear fuel rod safety would be a core function of the Town of Saugeen Shores.

In other words, if indeed you can make a compelling “save lives” argument, surely either the hospital budget can cough up an annual subsidy for our airport or your appeal lies to the Ministry of Health and our local MPP.

I copy our MPP who, though no longer a cabinet minister, I assume still may have some influence as a back bencher with this government.

We have provided as a city council plenty of lead time. If over the next months ahead, Mr. Walker can source substantial annual MOH subsidies for the airport or if your budget can do the same, I am certain that council would hear him and you out.

Bill, do you have any influence in that regard? What about you, Mr. Sims? Can you find $300,000 in your annual $220,000,000 budget?

Cordially,

John A. Tamming