Safety Remains the Issue

A controversial ban on eastward takeoffs should not be allowed to derail negotiations underway to build--finally--a new terminal at Burbank Airport.

The framework agreement reached last summer between the city of Burbank and the tri-city authority that runs the airport on behalf of Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena asks the Federal Aviation Administration to continue the ban, put in place in 1986 because the runway in question is too close to the old terminal.

A trio of congressmen representing San Fernando Valley residents west of the airport want the ban lifted so that those living east of the airport, in the Burbank and Glendale foothills, would “share the noise” now endured by their constituents.

We advocate neither a ban nor a plan to share the noise.

The congressmen rightfully point out that moving the terminal solves the problem that led to the ban in the first place. It at least solves the problem of proximity.

But even aside from the location of the terminal, pilots prefer the other, north-south runway because of other factors such as the length and slope of the runways and the prevailing winds. Using the north-south runway also avoids traffic from Los Angeles International Airport, not to mention the Verdugo Mountains.

Would lifting the ban mean some flights would take off to the east? Probably. But because pilots prefer the other runway, the number is not likely to be great. Prior to imposing the ban, eastward takeoffs amounted to about 5% of the total, according to information provided by the city of Burbank.

Should a larger percentage be mandated to share the noise more equitably? Absolutely not. Determining which runway to use should be done on safety grounds, by pilots and air traffic controllers. If you were in a plane, who would you want making such decisions?

Even if safety weren’t a factor, “share the noise” plans that attempt to distribute noise more equitably have been tried in other parts of the country without much success. Residents who have always complained continue to complain, only to be joined by residents from new neighborhoods.

Keeping a new batch of residents from complaining--and from suing the airport--is no doubt a reason why the framework agreement asks to continue the ban. But again, safety, not politics, should take precedence. A new terminal is needed, for safety reasons. And neither a ban nor a share the noise plan should be allowed to stop it.

Burbank Airport needs

a new terminal, for safety reasons. Neither a ban on eastward takeoffs nor a share-the-noise plan should be allowed to stop it.