Safety Is the Loser in Airport Maneuvering

The Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority recently hired a consultant to conduct a $1-million study of the noise restrictions that the city of Burbank demands as a condition for dropping its opposition to a new terminal building at the airport.

We have been at impasse because Burbank is making demands for caps and curfews, even though FAA Administrator Jane Garvey says these measures are “not within the power of the Burbank Airport Authority or the Federal Aviation Administration to impose.”

FAA regulations spell out the process for applying for caps and curfews after conducting an exhaustive and highly technical Part 161 study. Now that the study is underway, one would think that the impasse would be resolved. Not so. Burbank officials are now complaining that the study won’t be credible, and they have threatened to oppose it.

I hope such threats are only rhetoric. I hope Burbank officials take advantage of the ample opportunities to influence the study’s outcome that they will be afforded as we go through this lengthy and expensive process. Burbank’s lawyers say there are ways to impose a curfew without doing a Part 161 study. The airport’s attorneys have said they do not think such a loophole exists, but that if one does, they would like the FAA to say so. Commission President Joyce Streator and Vice President Carl Meseck wrote to Garvey this month asking for a ruling. We hope we get one before we spend any more money on the study.

Here is the airport’s problem: We need a new terminal and we need it now. The recent crash landing at Van Nuys Airport by a business jet that veered hundreds of feet off the runway and smashed into four parked aircraft is a wake-up call.

Our 70-year-old terminal is grossly out of compliance with FAA standards. The building is only 313 feet from the runway center line although it should be at least 750 feet away. It’s a significant safety problem, and it should not be delayed any longer, especially over noise issues.

With all the legal advice they’ve been paying for, you’d think Burbank council members would have a better grasp of their liability in this issue. Yet Burbank is willing to sell safety down the river.

“If safety were the real issue for the airport authority,” the city says in a pamphlet, “Burbank would agree to move forward with building a replacement terminal now and figure out how to resolve our differences over the amount of future expansion at a later date. But the airport authority has steadfastly refused to do that.”

This is one of the most outrageous statements to emerge in the entire debate. Safety is the issue and that the time to act is now. The airport authority has steadfastly argued that safety is paramount and that it is wrong for Burbank to hold the terminal hostage over non-safety issues.

Aircraft noise should, by any rational standard, pale in comparison. Burbank, on the other hand, has clearly published its willingness to ensure that no terminal project is built “without a compromise.”

The question is, what does Burbank mean by compromise? The airport authority has stated its position repeatedly. We will seriously consider any restrictions on the airlines that enable us to build the new terminal, as long as they do not violate federal law or cause the airlines to stop using the airport. After all, the authority was created by state law to operate a viable airport, not to run it out of business.

With that understanding, if it’s legal, we’ll do it. How much more compromise is possible than that? Neither should we build a small building to replace only the 14 gates that we now have. First, it would be irresponsible to spend $300 million in public funds on a facility that is undersized and inadequate from Day One, not to mention that it would be impossible to finance. Burbank has said it accepts our proposal for a 19-gate terminal, which would provide the proper amenities for the traveling public.

The only “expansion” issue left is the number of flights and that is what the Part 161 study will address. Yes, let’s work it out later, but let the terminal go forward.

But Burbank refuses to come to the table. Instead, four members of the Burbank City Council appeared at an Airport Commission meeting and vowed to delay the new terminal for decades. In other words, Burbank will hold this safety project hostage to get the controls it wants out of Congress and the FAA.

This approach, in my view, has little chance of success and places the blame for the present impasse squarely on the shoulders of the Burbank City Council. I wonder how many wake-up calls it’s going to take.