Burbank Airport Expansion

In a letter dated March 24 to U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman, the Federal Aviation Administration wrote: “The imposition of an airport noise or access restriction, such as a curfew, a Stage II ban, or a noise budget, is subject to governing federal law and is not within the power of the Burbank Airport Authority or the FAA to impose.”

This is a message we have been trying to get across for years. “It is important to note,” the FAA writes in that same letter, “that the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport currently operates with an all-Stage III airline fleet and that noise is significantly less than it was when the airport was acquired publicly.”

“The replacement terminal building will not increase noise at the airport. The FAA’s concern is that the insistence on linking the construction of the terminal to a mandatory airport noise restriction may obstruct what we all agree is a needed safety improvement.”

U.S. Rep. Howard L. Berman, in an article April 5, (“FAA Is the Best Hope for Burbank Airport,”) states, “I don’t want to see another 15 years go by without a new terminal.”

We couldn’t agree more. That’s why the airport authority has worked so diligently toward compliance with FAA regulations and toward providing a new and efficient terminal.

Berman charges that the airport authority has used as a “smoke screen” the refrain that “the FAA won’t let us do that.” We hope the FAA letter will clear up the misconception. It isn’t the airport authority that has been pursuing a “stonewalling strategy,” but rather opponents to the airport’s replacement terminal program.

Berman’s assertion that terminal expansion will “inevitably” lead to “more fights and aircraft noise” is in direct contrast to studies conducted by the FAA and findings of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. According to the FAA’s environmental impact statement, airport growth is not related to the size of the terminal. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided last month in favor of the FAA and airport authority that the projected growth will come whether or not a new terminal is built.

Given that growth will come and that the airport authority is powerless to accede to opponents’ demands, should airport safety continue to be compromised while the opponents drag out the battle in the courts? We think not. That’s why we are working so hard to get this project underway.

THOMAS E. GREER, Executive Director, Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority

*

While the residents of Studio City share The Times’ desire that the Burbank Airport tussle come to an end quickly, there are some serious flaws in your editorial comment (Time to Yield on Airport Curfew,” April 18). First, the airport authority has never stated that it will restrict future growth to only 19 total gates. The current phase of expansion includes a 19-gate total but the authority has consistently acknowledged that it is planning for as many as 27 total gates in later phases. Second, moving the terminal for safety purposes is a pretext for expansion. The FAA currently allows every size aircraft that can use the airport to use the airport; were there a real safety concern, the terminal would have been moved long ago or flights into and out of Burbank would already be severely restricted. Third, in a recent [newspaper] article, the FAA stated that they would consider changes to aircraft traffic patterns at several airports to reduce congestion and noise. Clearly, if the FAA is willing to review heretofore sacrosanct flight patterns, there is some reason to believe that a reasonable curfew might also be worth further consideration.

Perhaps if the authority implements a response other than “just say no!” to every suggestion from residents and the city of Burbank, this matter can be resolved quickly.

CHRISTOPHER BARNES, Airport Study Advisory Committee, Studio City

*

I try very hard to keep up with the details and events of the airport expansion, but seem to fall short. I honestly think it is a full-time job, and with all the smoke screening and accusations that are blasted back and forth, it’s very hard.

I live in the flight path, near Burbank Boulevard and Hollywood Way, and the noise is a problem. I know that Glendale and Pasadena don’t really care how the expansion will affect the neighborhood around the airport. But I do know that money talks, and that’s all they are interested in. More building equals more business, equals more people, equals more traffic, equals more money.

I don’t think anyone favoring this expansion, has really taken into account that Burbank is our home, our children’s home and our grandchildren’s home. And I want my children and my grandchildren to enjoy living in this peaceful and serene town.

LUCY GUERRA ALOYIAN, Burbank