In light of last week’s frighteningly familiar mishap at New York’s LaGuardia Airport coupled with regulators assessing whether or not LaGuardia is “fit” or eligible for long-haul flights, are we not unnecessarily pushing the limits of this 7,000-foot-runway facility? By almost every account, commercial pilots and others within the aviation community dislike taking off and landing at LaGuardia even on the best of days. Having heard it referred to as essentially an “aircraft carrier” with runways flanked by water on multiple sides or a “postage stamp” requiring seasoned, unwavering “varsity” piloting skills, what can be the thinking behind adding the additional risk of long-haul flights with heavier aircraft that require a greater distance to take off or execute landings? I will leave that answer to your discretion. The above said, I crossed LaGuardia off my list many years ago after experiencing a heroic landing aboard an old-school Lockheed L-1011 with Delta Air Lines from West Palm International Airport. After we were all warned up front by the pilot of a “bumpy” descent, he executed the nearly 180-degree, left-hand turn around the old Shea Stadium into a vicious crosswind and stuck a landing that jarred the fillings in my teeth — no kidding! Upon deplaning and greeting the man of the hour (as far as I was concerned), the pilot displayed disheveled hair, a pale face and was perspiring profusely on a cold winter night. I was inclined to thank him, of course, and commented, “You earned your money tonight.” His response: No words but merely a “phew”-like head shake as he wiped the sweat from his brow. Thanks, but I’ll be sticking with New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport for the foreseeable future. — David Katz, director of sales & marketing