Still Not Off the Ground
To local air travelers, Burbank Airport maintains the aura of a small community facility where you can still walk a few hundred feet from the flight tarmac to the parking lot.
But the airport is playing an increasingly important role in the regional air traffic system, serving an estimated 4.7 million passengers a year in Ventura and northern Los Angeles counties.
Passengers see it as a convenient alternative to Los Angeles International Airport. But fulfilling its role as a major regional airport hinges on construction of a new and bigger terminal--which has been vigorously resisted by community residents who have fought the project to a standstill.
To break the deadlock, residents and airport officials alike are focusing on a $4-million federal noise study that could force the airport to become a quieter neighbor while still allowing the expansion.
But achieving their goal--a mandatory curfew on late-night flights--requires the approval of the Federal Aviation Administration. And if history is any guide, the agency could be their most formidable opponent yet.
“We don’t want to prejudge any community’s concerns,” said FAA spokesman Paul Turk. “But we have a federal and legal framework, and we warn people the statutory standards are very high, and it’s a difficult process to prove your case.”
In resisting local noise curbs, the FAA and airlines say they are working to preserve the efficiency of the national air transportation system--already subject to disruptions from weather and other factors.
A decade ago, Congress passed the Airport Noise and Control Act to stop the proliferation of noise rules at commercial airports, which was creating a patchwork of conflicting regulations for airlines.
A portion of that act, now contained in Part 161 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, empowered airports to conduct studies that could lead to special FAA-approved noise rules for individual airports.
Since then, nearly a dozen airports have considered or started so-called Part 161 studies, but only one airport has submitted a completed review to the FAA. Moreover, the agency has not approved any curfews since the noise act was passed in 1990.
Risk That Talks Will Return to Square 1
Burbank city officials say that without a curfew, they are unlikely to approve a new terminal. Faced with that reality, the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority agreed last month to conduct the three-year Part 161 study--putting the brakes, at least temporarily, on the $300-million terminal project.
In making that decision, however, the authority took a risk that three years from now, the FAA will reject the curfew and that negotiations on the new terminal will be back to Square 1.
“If the FAA denies noise relief to residents around the airport, then they are going to have to accept that it may be another 25 years before a replacement terminal is built,” said Charles Lombardo, an Airport Authority member from Burbank. “Then, instead of a 70-year-old terminal our kids will be arguing about a 95-year-old building.”
Chris Holden, an authority member from Pasadena, conceded that the chances of the FAA approving a curfew are “very slim.”
“But we want to pursue all of the appropriate avenues to make the airport as quiet as possible. We want to do it because it’s the right thing to do,” he said.
To Burbank and Los Angeles residents living south and west of the airport, the curfew is the best way to limit noise at a facility where the number of passengers is bound to grow with construction of a new terminal.
“This is our only assurance [that] we will be able to control the negative impact on the people who live near that airport,” said Ted McConkey, a longtime airport critic and former Burbank city councilman.
He and others want caps on the number of flights allowed and a mandatory curfew from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. But airlines vow to dig in their heels to oppose any limits on airport operations.
“It’s like a traffic ticket,” said Neil Bennett, western regional director of the Air Transport Assn., which represents major carriers. “You pay the fine or fight the ticket. In this case, the fine [for the airlines] is a lot more than just Burbank.”
In recent years, the city of Burbank has been at odds with its airport partners--pushing for noise controls that were resisted by Glendale and Pasadena.
Airport Authority spokesman Victor Gill said that the tri-city agency is now committed to imposing a mandatory nighttime curfew, but that the precise details are yet to be determined.
“The consultant has been directed to report back at the beginning of June to recommend the specific noise restrictions that will be studied,” Gill said. “Beyond that, it will be conducted in four phases and take approximately three years.”
Authority President Carl Meseck acknowledged that the airlines will argue against a mandatory curfew.
“But I have to believe we have a pretty strong case,” Meseck said. “. . . Nobody can guarantee anything. But I’m not worried about what happens three years from now.”
Airlines Fear a Snowball Effect
Curfew critics, chiefly from the airlines and business aviation, say the late-night ban would have minimal impact on flights but would inspire a slew of similar restrictions, playing havoc with national flight schedules and cutting into profits.
Besides Burbank, only eight airports--in Aspen, Colo.; Key West, Fla.; Maui, Hawaii; Minneapolis; Naples, Fla.; Portsmouth, N.H.; San Francisco and San Jose--have attempted Part 161 studies, partly because the FAA has openly discouraged them, aviation experts say.
In addition, “you don’t want to submit a report [to the FAA] that refutes your argument for putting a restriction in place,” said Steve Alverson, a national aviation noise consultant who managed the only two Part 161 studies that have been completed. “That isn’t helped by the FAA, which has been purposefully vague because it is predisposed toward keeping the integrity of a national air transportation system.
“Obviously the results to date speak for themselves,” he said. “The process has been in place since 1990, and there have been no [completed] Part 161 studies approved.”
FAA rules state that any proposed noise regulations must not interfere with interstate or foreign commerce, hinder efficient use of airspace or create an undue burden on the national aviation system.
San Francisco International was the only airport to submit a noise review to the FAA, but later withdrew it when airport officials reached voluntary agreements with airlines to eliminate use of noisier Stage 2 jets at night.
Besides Burbank, the only airports with studies currently underway are those in Portsmouth, N.H., and Naples, Fla. But neither is comparable to Burbank because they are primarily used for business aviation.
Restrictions on commercial jetliners are nothing new. John Wayne Airport in Orange County bans takeoffs of commercial flights between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and landings between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. Long Beach limits aircraft noise and the number of planes. Both airports, however, imposed those standards before Congress adopted the new noise rules in 1990.
Burbank Airport has also taken steps to reduce noise, allowing only comparatively quiet Stage 3 jets for scheduled passenger service, and establishing a voluntary curfew from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
Los Angeles officials say local airports must grow if Southern California is to accommodate rapid population expansion and economic opportunity. Part of that strategy is trying to spread the burden from LAX, which does not have a curfew.
Air Traffic Outstrips Growth in Facilities
Peter Kirsch, an attorney whose law firm represents the city of Burbank and LAX, said the FAA’s decision will be all the more difficult because growth in air transportation has far outpaced the ability to build new airports.
“The FAA and airlines are worried about the precedent,” he said. “But they are going to have to balance those concerns against their need to grow. And that makes approving a deal at Burbank the only way to accommodate growth in local demand.”
The controversy over Burbank Airport dates to 1980, when the FAA urged officials to move the 1930s-era terminal because it was too close to the east-west runway under modern aviation safety standards.
Things became heated in 1995 with the election of an anti-airport majority on the Burbank City Council that opposed all efforts to build the new, bigger terminal and waged a legal battle to stop those plans.
At the time, airport officials were pushing for a 19-gate, 670,000-square-foot terminal with plans for an eventual 27 gates--there are currently 14--and sued Burbank in federal court when the city tried to block the project.
Burbank then filed a lawsuit in Superior Court aimed at blocking transfer of a 130-acre parcel owned by Lockheed Martin to the Airport Authority. A Superior Court judge subsequently ruled that the law did not prevent Burbank from blocking purchase of land for terminal expansion.
Last August, Burbank dropped its opposition to a new terminal, allowing the airport to spend $100 million to acquire the site from Lockheed. In return, the airport agreed to close the new terminal between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. FAA chief Jane Garvey objected, saying that it was a de facto mandatory curfew and that any plans to close the terminal would require completion of a Part 161 study.
Airport Authority member Holden said the worst-case scenario would be no curfew--and no new terminal. In fact, according to Burbank Airport officials, the FAA is suggesting that it will take back $20 million in grant money for the terminal site because of delays in the project.
“We may not get the terminal relocated, but we’ll still be an airport, planes will still take off and land every day and the city of Burbank will still have to pick up trash and respond to 911 calls,” he said. “Life goes on.”
(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)
Fighting to Reduce Noise
If there is a defining issue at the center of Burbank Airport’s turbulent history, it is jet noise. The airport, which is celebrating its 70th anniversary, started out servicing biplanes in the days before the Jet Age.
More recently, passenger demand and increased urbanization have caused tension over airport growth. Airport officials say today’s jets are 20 times quieter than those that flew in the 1970s and ‘80s. They add that technology and noise mitigation efforts have drastically reduced the area where average noise levels exceed 70 decibels. Neighbors of the airport counter that things don’t seem any quieter. And they point out that the number of commercial flights at the airport has nearly doubled, from 34,395 in 1978 to 62,095 in 1999.
NOISE FOOTPRINT
Area where average airplane noise exceeds 70 decibels (about as loud as a vacuum cleaner)
NUMBER OF PASSENGERS AT BURBANK AIRPORT, 1956-99
1956: 648,088
1999: 4,736,293
1999 PASSENGER COUNTS
At Southern California airports
*--*
Airport Passengers 1. LAX 64,279,571 2. San Diego 15,301,916 3. John Wayne 7,470,417 4. Ontario 6,578,005 5. Burbank 4,736,293 6. Long Beach 871,189
*--*
COMINGS AND GOINGS
Annual Burbank passenger totals reflect both arrivals from and departures to the following airports:
*--*
Airport Passengers 1. Bay Area airports 1,904,840 2. Las Vegas 648,110 3. Sacramento 593,170 4. Phoenix 443,780 5. Seattle 243,590 6. Portland 150,390 7. Reno 79,720 8. Dallas 57,330 9. Denver 52,050 10. Salt Lake City 44,300 11. Albuquerque 33,620 12. Kansas City 27,430 13. Houston 26,950 14. Chicago 25,740 15. Spokane 24,700
*--*
Source: Burbank Airport
