Vermont transportation officials are asking for a new state-owned airplane, but at least one top lawmaker says the idea should be grounded.

“It just caught me by complete surprise that we’d be spending so much money when we don’t have any money,” says Sen. Dick Mazza (D-Grand Isle), who chairs the Senate Transportation Committee. 

Vermont’s Agency of Transportation (VTrans) is hoping to sell its 1962 Cessna 182 aircraft and replace it with a 2013 Beechcraft Baron. The state would pay $117,600 per year for 10 years in a lease-to-buy arrangement, says VTrans policy planning and intermodal development director Chris Cole. 

(Pictured above is the Cessna with state aviation program administrator Guy Rouelle.)

Given that the plane would cost $250 an hour to operate and would likely fly about 150 hours a year, Cole estimates the total annual price tag would come to $155,100. 

To Mazza, who first learned of the request during a Senate Transportation Committee meeting Friday, that’s too much to spend when the state budget is already tight.

“This is not a time to be asking for that kind of money when we’re talking about a shortage in our total funding,” Mazza says. “I have a hard time believing we can own a plane cheaper than we can rent it when we need it.”

Paul Heintz was part of the Seven Days news team from 2012 to 2020. He served as political editor and wrote the "Fair Game" political column before becoming a staff writer.

4 replies on “Lawmaker Says State’s Request for New Airplane Won’t Fly”

  1. Cole obviously understands little about aviation or the value and capabilities of the State’s current 182 Cessna. His arguments ,seemly plausible to the layman, are hollow to anyone that understands aviation, aircraft, and the mission of that particular aircraft in the State. Fire Chris Cole would be my first task here! Who interviewed this guy? Fire them too. Cole can not possibly be the best we have for director of Aviation??? Sad story.
    “Danger Bureaucrats at Work!”

  2. Not sure where he got the 400 mile range number. The Beechcraft Baron has a maximum range of 1,769 miles. You can easily make it down to DC in that aircraft without stopping/re-fueling. That plane could transport up to 5 passengers and 1 crew member to DC without re-fueling.

  3. Wow, where to begin. To echo the comment made by fyi4u2day, it sounds like the Cessna 182 is the perfect aircraft for the current VTRANS mission. And if the mission isn’t changing, then why not purchase a newer model of the 182 if the current aircraft is really at the end of its useful life ((I’m guessing its accumulated approx. 8000 total airframe hours)? After all the 182 model has worked fine for us for 50 years….
    A low-time 2000 model year 182 will set the State back ~$200,000. In contrast, the retail price of a new Baron is close to $1M and the total lease amount over ten years is close to $1.5M. Plus, whoever flies the thing will need a twin engine rating, upgraded insurance and of course a corresponding bump in pay.
    Which brings me to the juicy tidbit that the post left out, namely that the Baron is an big upgrade, taking VTRANS from a single engine piston to a twin engine piston aircraft. If, as the post states, the current and future role of the aircraft is mostly State airport inspections and airborne inspections of things on the ground, all in fair weather and within the geographic confines of the State than why ruin a good thing? Given its high-wing stance, fuel sipping single engine, affable personality and its ability to get in and out of any airport in the state it’s perfect for VTRANS’s stated needs. Heck, a Cessna 172 would suffice! Contrast this with the low-wing, twin engine Baron and you start to see the confusion some of us are having around the VTRAN’s selection.
    If VTRANS is instead looking to upgrade in order to fulfill an even greater mission, then for a little more than the lease cost of the new Baron, and for only slightly more in terms of operating costs, they could pick up a gently-used, single engine turbine-powered Cessna Caravan (which is basically a Cessna 182 on EPO, HGH and steroids). The ultra-reliable Caravan seats 14 passengers plus two crew, can haul pretty much anything you can fit through the door and is capable of landing almost anywhere (pretty handy in a mountainous state and especially so during natural disasters). Plus the Caravan burns jet fuel. The Baron, on the other hand, relies on leaded avgas (aviation gasoline). And given the added pollution hazard and uncertainty surrounding the future production of avgas, would it really make sense to spend in excess of $1M in public funds to buy a brand new Baron that requires what is soon to become an obsolete fuel?
    Of course, the question that really begs asking is whether or not the state needs to own an airplane at all given that for ~$30,000 a year (assuming 150 flight hours) the State can rent a late model 182 in order to fulfill the VTRANS mission. Of course, the added cost of a pilot (or two?) and insurance, etc., would need to be factored into this number. But even so, we’re still talking far less than the $155,000 annually budgeted for the Baron.
    I’m glad to hear Sen. Mazza balked at the proposal and I look forward to a far more reasonable and seasoned resolution.

Comments are closed.