92.9 F
San Fernando
Monday, Mar 18, 2024

AIRPORT—Burbank Airport Post-Attack Debate Gets Complicated

Neither Burbank Airport nor city officials are ready to make predictions on how deeply the Federal Aviation Administration intends to get involved in local land-use issues as part of a sweeping campaign to bolster security at the nation’s airports in light of the Sept. 11 attacks. But both sides say any hope of reviving stalled plans for terminal expansion has dimmed for the time being, with the city anticipating expanded federal involvement and the airport resigned to a fiscal and political “time-out.” Consider these developments since the attacks: – Some form of federalization of all airport security personnel is being considered. – Teetering on the edge of financial disaster, airlines are lobbying for a $15 billion government bailout. – Calls for Burbank and other regional airports to absorb Los Angeles International Airport’s overflow have accelerated as LAX tables its own expansion plans. – Burbank has shelved new terminal plans and postponed planned meetings of a newly formed tri-city coalition. – Burbank voters approved an initiative that strips the city of much of its bargaining power in future airport expansion plans. – And finally, Burbank’s newest airport commissioner has resigned, saying all plans for expansion might as well be scuttled and begun again from scratch. These developments threaten to cancel out years of negotiations, lobbying and costly litigation between the city of Burbank and the airport over a replacement terminal. Measure A, known as the ROAR Initiative (Restore Our Airport Rights), approved Oct. 9, requires that future airport expansion plans be approved by a two-thirds majority of Burbank voters and calls for caps on the number of flights, night-time curfews and limits on passengers. Critics say, if challenged, the measure could spur expanded FAA involvement in issues it has heretofore left to local municipalities, like possibly mandated terminal renovations in order to improve security and safety. “This is a time of great uncertainty,” said Burbank City Manager Robert “Bud” Ovrom. “Although I don’t think Burbank is high on the list of priorities for the federal government, I do think we have to be realistic about the distinct possibility. We’ve spent $10 million in the last five years on court victories, and we’ve won the court cases and put ourselves in strong negotiations with the FAA, but the ROAR vote could wipe all that out in one election. It’s going to show the federal government that the local government can’t work it out on their own.” ROAR initiative co-author Howard Rothenbach called Ovrom’s comments “pure political rhetoric.” He and airport officials agree the FAA is so heavily involved in security issues at the moment, it has little interest in Burbank’s terminal war. Burbank Airport Executive Director Dios Marrero said the airport has had no indication from the FAA that it intends to broaden the scope of its authority. “The notion of a federally mandated terminal project is not an approach that would be given federal priority when the industry is already verging on bankruptcy,” said Marrero. “In fact, I think the dynamics would go in the opposite direction.” But U.S. Congressman Adam Schiff, a Democrat whose 27th District includes Burbank, said the FAA certainly has the power to mandate construction of a new terminal if it is needed for security measures whether they are related to terrorist attacks or not. Schiff also downplayed any impact the ROAR vote might have on federal legislation dealing with regional airports and said he agreed that it was probably wise for the airport to hold off on terminal plans until the economy and the airline industry are on solid ground again. “I think it’s wise to take a step back from the acrimonious dispute involving the new terminal and give the country and the officials involved in that dispute some time to assess the future of the industry and what the FAA’s plans are for implementing further security measures,” Schiff said. Since the attacks, the Burbank Airport Authority has tabled planned talks with members of the Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena city councils, originally scheduled this summer to create more of an open dialogue. “You have to ask yourself, OK, what is the big hurry for this meeting?” said Victor Gill, airport spokesman. The impending demise of United Airline’s shuttle service at a number of airports the airline’s attempt to compete with Southwest Airline’s quick in-and-out service and pressure on regional airports to absorb traffic LAX was planning to take on in the next few years,also threaten to change the landscape of airport operations. As a result, it may be too soon to say whether the Burbank Airport’s 14 gates are too much, or not enough. “For now, the FAA’s focus is security, security, security,” said Gill. “And we just don’t know what future security measures are going to mean in terms of changes in airport operations.” Finally, Burbank Airport Commissioner Dave Newsham resigned last week saying he believed funding would be “difficult if not impossible to obtain” for a new terminal, adding that, in light of the attacks and new security measures, all future airport designs will need to be reevaluated. An agreement on the proposed new terminal was tabled earlier this year when the city demanded the airport update its environmental impact study. The airport later said it would seek to build on a smaller site, but is now holding off on those plans due to uncertainties in the marketplace. It also has sold 22 acres of B-6 property for $16.9 million to a Boston developer for non-airport-related industrial use.

Featured Articles

Related Articles