Airline Group Rejects Request to Accept Mandatory Curfew

Most airlines serving Burbank Airport have refused to accept an ironclad curfew, apparently torpedoing hopes for a swift end to the years of feuding with neighbors over airport noise.

The rejection leaves airport officials pondering whether to embark on the lengthy bureaucratic process with the federal government needed to impose a mandatory curfew, the goal of noise protesters led by the Burbank city government.

The Air Transport Assn., which represents five of the airport’s six airlines, refused Thursday to accept the airport management’s suggestion that they agree to abide by the airport’s voluntary 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew, without exceptions.

All but a handful of flights now observe the curfew, but those few early takeoffs are particularly galling to neighbors.

Neil Bennett, the association’s western regional director, said the group’s members--which include Alaska, American, America West, United and Southwest airlines--refused because the curfew would affect their ability to respond to future customer demand.

“There have been no conversations at this point with reference to a curfew agreement with Burbank Airport,” Bennett said. “We have no plans right now other than to respond to whatever the airport plans to do.”

The airport’s governing body, the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, has been locked in legal and political battles for years with the Burbank and Los Angeles city governments, as well as neighborhood residents groups, over aircraft noise.

The noise battle has been extended into a struggle over the authority’s attempts to build a new terminal, which the anti-noise forces have been fighting to block, contending it will make the problem worse.

The airport responds that it is demand for airline service, not the size of the terminal, that controls flight frequency and that no curfew can be imposed without permission from the Federal Aviation Administration.

Airport officials insist that they have never been opposed to a curfew or other noise cap and that they are exploring how such limits could be implemented, but will not violate federal law by acting unilaterally.

The possibility that the airlines would agree to make the voluntary curfew mandatory--as suggested recently by airport officials and federal lawmakers--had raised hopes for an end to the battle.

But Bennett’s statement served as a definitive ‘no’ to a request by airport Executive Director Tom Greer in a letter to the airlines last week that urged them to reconsider their long-standing opposition to operational restrictions in light of the alternative: becoming enmeshed in the process that could lead to FAA approval of a mandatory curfew.

The process, called a Part 161 study, could take as long as three years of hearings and paperwork. The nine-member Airport Authority is set to vote Monday on whether to request such a study. The city of Burbank, in a public statement Thursday, offered to pay up to $250,000 of the cost.

The Glendale City Council on Friday called a rare weekend meeting for today, a closed session at which the members will “discuss issues related to the airport,” Mayor Eileen Givens said Friday. She would not elaborate.

Burbank Airport spokesman Sean McCarthy declined comment on the airlines’ stand. Other officials, however, said they were not surprised.

“That’s the position I would expect them to take,” said Pasadena Mayor and Airport Authority President Chris Holden. “This is the issue that has long dogged our effort at moving forward toward relocating the terminal.”

“You’re not going to have the air carriers enthusiastically supporting any sort of constraint on operations,” added Peter Kirsch, an attorney for Burbank. “The best you can hope for is that they will not vigorously oppose it.”

The Air Transport Assn. is not opposed to all limits on flight operations, and member airlines have a good record of compliance with the airport’s voluntary restrictions, Bennett said.

But the airlines object to mandatory restrictions because they would have trouble meeting them all the time due to factors beyond their control, such as weather, air-traffic delays or mechanical problems, he said.

“What happens then?” Bennett asked. “That’s the problem we have.”

The one airline operating at Burbank that does not belong to the association is Reno Air, which planned to inaugurate 6:40 a.m. flights to San Jose, then backed down several weeks ago after neighbors howled in protest.

John Albrecht, Reno Air’s director of airport affairs, had harsh words for the voluntary curfew, which he said Reno Air would observe only if other airlines do the same.

FAA Administrator Jane Garvey has been under increasing pressure from the area’s congressional representatives to take action. When she met with residents, airport and Burbank officials in August, Garvey pledged to help resolve the issue.

Last week Reps. Howard L. Berman (D-Mission Hills) and Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) wrote her, urging the FAA to impose a mandatory curfew and other mitigation measures.

Rep. James Rogan (R-Glendale) is waiting for a response from Garvey on whether the airport is covered by a grandfather clause in the law that grants some airports the power to impose tougher noise rules on their own authority.

In a separate letter, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) also urged Garvey to address the curfew issue and review any legal precedent that might allow tighter noise restrictions without prior FAA approval.

The FAA did not respond directly to the Air Transport Assn. statements. But during her trip to Burbank, the administrator left the door open for what in all likelihood will be the next step: a Part 161 study.

“The 161 is a new experience both to the FAA and for airports and local communities as well,” Garvey said. “I don’t think you’ll find the FAA suggesting one way or another . . . . If the local folks, after discussing it among themselves, say, ‘Look, we think a 161 makes sense,’ we will approach that.”