Burbank Airport Agreement

Re “No One Caved on Airport,” Aug. 29.

Your editorial continues the bias which The Times has long shown in favor of the expansion of Burbank Airport.

You mention that the noisy Stage 2 jets will be phased out over the next five years. This is not due to the airport’s benevolence. It is because it will allow the airport to at least double the number of commercial airline departures from 80 to 160 or more while retaining the same calculated noise impact area.

You correctly note that the proposed closure of the terminal at night is a de facto curfew. The Air Transport Assn. has already indicated that it will likely challenge it for being exactly what it is, a curfew that has not been blessed by the Federal Aviation Administration.

You criticize those who wish to see a real and legal curfew obtained via the appropriate FAA study, but due to your inherent bias, you fail to mention that this study could have been completed long ago. In fact, this month marks the four-year anniversary of the date that the airport reneged on its earlier promise to do the study. A new and expanded terminal is needed but with appropriate safeguards, which the draft agreement does not provide.

RON VANDERFORD

Burbank