On Tuesday, April 11, John Bauer from the Federal Aviation Administration participated in a Q&A session with the Pitkin Board of County Commissioners and the Airport Advisory Board. His remarks were not encouraging.
But looked at another way, perhaps they opened up new possibilities to control our airport’s future.
Currently the Aspen airport has 85 modifications from the national design standards for airports handling planes with wingspans up to 118 feet. Some of those exceptions make our airport safe only for wingspans up to 95 feet. Mr. Bauer said that the FAA wanted to eliminate about half of those modifications because the FAA doesn’t like restrictions or modifications. He said if Aspen does not increase the separation of the taxiway and runway from 320 feet to 400 feet, then the FAA will likely refuse any future discretionary grant funding.
Once that separation is widened, planes with wingspans larger than the current 95-foot restriction (up to 118 feet) will be allowed and there is nothing the county can do to stop them. They may be quieter and cleaner or noisier and dirtier; there’s no way to predict the mix. And rearranging the airfield also means a new, taller control tower, moved to a more prominent place.
Question for the community: Does Aspen want or need 737s, Airbuses and bigger Gulfstream private jets?
Mr. Bauer also told the county in no uncertain terms that the FAA will not fund the airport terminal improvements (landside) before the airside improvements, including increasing the separation between runway centerline and taxiway centerline to 400 feet, despite the constrained topography, noise, air quality and above all, safety. However, the FAA is not requiring these changes — an important distinction, which means we have a choice.
Mr. Bauer made clear that it was Pitkin County who initiated the conversation about allowing larger planes. (The FAA did signal in 2013 that bigger planes would require the 400-foot separation. But a decade earlier, expansionists were pushing for bigger planes, specifically 737s, which bond voters rejected by a 3:2 vote in 1995.)
And here’s the crucial point: If the county wanted bigger planes, the FAA would then require changes to increase the separation to 400 feet to safely accommodate those wider wingspans. But Mr. Bauer confirmed that if the county doesn’t want larger planes, the separation can stay at 320 feet. He also confirmed the FAA rule that only rebuilding nonstandard airside elements, not merely repairing or rehabilitating them, would trigger an upgrade to the 400-foot standard.
We need to take a deep breath. There is no crisis here. The industry consultants for Pitkin County agree that the type of aircraft now used for all commercial flights — the CRJ-700 — could serve Aspen for another 20 to 30 years. The proposed Embraer E-175 also fits within the 95-foot wingspan limit. There is no reason to make this decision now to allow for larger planes.
Both Mr. Bauer and Jon Peacock, the Pitkin County manager, said that the Aspen airport is currently safe. (The FAA formally found so in 1999 when approving the 320-foot exception with the county’s 95-foot wingspan limit.) While it is safely operated by the FAA, our airport still remains challenging for fliers because of terrain, altitude, wind and weather.
Safety becomes an issue if and only if the county requires the airport to admit bigger planes. By wanting the 400-foot separation, the FAA seems to be holding Pitkin County and the airport hostage for large planes that our community may not want or need. And with aviation technologies changing so swiftly, it’s imprudent to make that choice now.
There is another choice. The county just picked a finalist — the incumbent monopolis — to be the fixed-base operator, or FBO, for private aircraft services. But the county has said it could instead choose to reject all bids, take back control of the FBO, and keep the revenue to improve the airport. That would keep the airport more consistent with community values than the rigid standardization of the FAA. The county could then hire an experienced FBO company to manage it (as at least one smaller bidder proposed) according to Pitkin guidelines and keep the profits from fuel sales to be used for improvements, such as a new commercial passenger terminal.
Revenue from the FBO, other current airport revenues, and the FAA’s normal “entitlement” grants would be enough to build a new terminal and make other improvements on the airside without the discretionary funding from the FAA. That’s even easier if we don’t proceed now (and perhaps not later, either) with a $200 million-plus upgrade for bigger planes. Instead of lining the pockets of shareholders who operate the FBO, we should be treating the airport as a county asset, utilized for the benefit of all.
Given Mr. Bauer’s remarks, perhaps the time has come for our county leaders to take back our aviation destiny. We don’t have to increase the separation to 400 feet and we can regain authority over the FBO’s prices, practices and quality. We have the power today to create a better, cleaner and safer Aspen Airport — one we can all be proud of. Do we have the courage?