Burbank Airport Expansion

How odd that Mr. [Tom] Greer would choose such an unfortunate turn of phrase as “wake-up call” in his equivocal opinion piece on Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport expansion (“Safety Is the Loser in Airport Maneuvering,” March 21).

Perhaps because he has never been awakened by a 4 a.m. takeoff, Mr. Greer does not grasp the irony of his own statement. More to the point, Mr. Greer engages in a gallant but eventually misleading statement of half-truths in his editorial.

First, it is the Airport Authority that has forged a link between a replacement terminal and a substantially expanded terminal. By refusing to even consider any limits on airport growth, and instead by planning for a 27-gate terminal (not just the 19-gate terminal that’s mentioned), the authority responds to residents’ concerns with a haughty Bronx cheer. Mr. Greer avoids a simple truth on this point: If the terminal were unsafe, the FAA would have closed it and demanded its replacement years ago.

Second, at no time since I have been involved in the process has the authority demonstrated the capacity for compromise it now demands. If the authority had once agreed to join forces with Burbank and other communities and request that the FAA approve a cap on the number of flights and establish a mandatory curfew, its demands for compromise might seem more credible. At last week’s meeting with state Sen. Schiff, Mr. Greer and Ms. [Joyce] Streator bobbed and weaved to avoid answering the simple question of whether they would even support a curfew if the FAA decided to grant one.

Finally, as to the vaunted Part 150 and 161 studies, I am currently a participant in the former and I can therefore understand Burbank’s concern with the latter. That is, given that the Part 150 conclusions were all but scripted by the Authority before the first meeting, we should all be skeptical of what will come out of a similarly conducted Part 161 study.

Apparently having failed to convince us of a “doomsday” scenario for Valley businesses if the airport isn’t allowed to grow unchecked, Mr. Greer now tries the Chicken Little approach: “VAN NUYS--IT COULD HAPPEN HERE!” If Mr. Greer is really concerned about safety, perhaps he should consider the increased risks from having another hundred aircraft a day storming over our homes.

CHRISTOPHER BARNES

Member, BGP Airport Part 150

Study Advisory Committee

and Board of Directors,

Studio City Residents Assn.

Studio City

*

Noise is the primary concern for Valley residents. Using Van Nuys’ isolated minor incident as a diversionary tactic only shows the Airport Authority’s desperation. The only safety you’re concerned about is your own job. More terminals equates to more flights and more noise. Period. To build more terminals to carry the same amount of traffic would be inefficient, wouldn’t it?

Don’t get me wrong, I love Burbank Airport. It’s a wonderful alternative to LAX, but its convenience must not diminish the quality of life for the Valley. Keeping all the windows closed and living in a bunker defeats the purpose of living in Southern California, doesn’t it?

Tom, get your priorities straight--it’s people first, business second.

And speaking of business, let me address your statement about “seriously considering flight restrictions.” A recent Burbank Leader headline stated that the majority of Valley residents are employed by the entertainment industry. Believe me when I say we’ve all had our issues “seriously considered” by one authority or another. We know a worthless attempt at placation when we hear one. We’re a sophisticated audience, so don’t waste our time.

As for your impending study--everyone knows you pay lawyers and consultants to get out of a jam. And what study wasn’t immediately refuted by another study? If you’re going to blow a million bucks, at least to to Las Vegas--or better yet throw a big party for us Valley residents to apologize for wasting our time and money.

Tom, a small auxiliary airport isn’t “undersized and inefficient” because it’s a small auxiliary airport! Sooner or later you’re going to have to deal with the realities of the situation: The expansion is not going to happen. Whether the Airport Authority accepts that now or 20 litigious years down the road is its own choice. Surprise, that wake-up call you hear is your own phone.

DARBY ORR

Burbank