I would be lying if I started this column with this trite opening phrase: “It was with great interest that I recently read the guest columns in both newspapers about Aspen airport topics.”
The columns were “Support for airport modernization” (April 24, Aspen Daily News) by Greg Goldfarb and “Don’t be misled by Aspen Fly Right’s financial proposal,” April 28, The Aspen Times) by Evan Marks. In fact, I realized instantly from the headlines alone that I was going to read the columns because it is hard to look away from street buskers.
Hmmm, I guess that kind of means I was interested. OK, fine.
Granted, at first, I was pleasantly surprised that The Aspen Times spelled all the words correctly in their column’s headline; sometimes, they don’t get it quiet (sic) right.
I’ll first explain that the headlines are really all you need to know about their positions, and if you choose not to read their columns, well, you’ll be better for it. However, I am happy to offer my opinion about their arguments.
Let’s start by condensing both columnists’ point of view as being, essentially, “pro” larger private jets being allowed to land in Aspen. It is certainly within everyone’s prerogative to have a stance on that topic. What I don’t understand, and am most curious about, is how two people end up being guest columnists on the same subject at about the same time?
Both men were creatively arguing, and trying to convince readers — with whatever methods they could come up with — that doing the construction required to allow larger, private jets into Aspen was good.
I sleuthed, curious as to who these two guys were and what possible motivations they had to so desperately want the ability to land larger private jets in Aspen.
Greg Goldfarb is a managing director at Summit Partners, a global venture capital and private equity investment firm.
Evan Marks is the founder and CEO of Alben Asset Management, a private wealth management company. He was previously the chairman and founder of a $5 billion global family office for a “prominent Asian family,” and the founder and principal of the office for the Soros family's personal real estate investments in the Americas, Europe and Asia. He also has other credits along the same lines, but I think you get the idea.
So, since they couldn’t possibly have any self-interest in advocating for the largest private jets to land in Aspen, let’s look at some of their statements instead.
Goldfarb’s column begins with this gem of an attempt at the standard “spin” methodology: “A vocal minority has made it appear that Pitkin County is divided on airport modernization. We are not.”
Without offering any evidence to support that claim (in fact, a recent poll had 57% opposing the “modernization” required to allow larger jets to land), he then makes other completely unsupported assumptions that he states as fact. He assumes, for instance, that we all believe that the commercial airplanes that land here (which are operated by SkyWest Airlines) have “too many mechanical issues to count,” even though in reality, SkyWest is now ranked as the second-best airline in the U.S., behind Alaska Airlines. And why couldn’t he mention a single mechanical issue if there are too many to count?
Goldfarb simplifies and misrepresents opposing arguments only so he can easily “refute” them, as seen in his dismissal of concerns about larger jets as mere "fearmongering." This is standard, strawman argumentation. Goldfarb makes the following statement about opposition to larger, private aircraft (and I’m not making this up): “The real agenda here seems to be to kill the airport altogether.” Really, Greg, that’s what you think? Do you imagine there are rubes who would believe that statement to be true?
Goldfarb accuses opponents of using fear tactics while simultaneously instilling fear about the current airport's safety and the potential loss of federal funds — aiming to shift the emotional balance to favor “modernization.” The old FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) tactic.
His commentary reduces complex issues, such as the implications of airport modernization, into binary choices — either support the “modernization” or face dire consequences — a classic oversimplification. As I’ve written about before, a perfectly modern and popular commercial airplane the same size as the CRJ-700 is already being manufactured and used worldwide, and could efficiently serve Aspen’s airport in its existing configuration. By ignoring other potential solutions, Goldfarb weaves the classic false dilemma. I don’t think he really cares what happens on the commercial side, but it is a good boogeyman for the common folk.
On the other hand, Evan Marks’ guest commentary had more substance (which is “any” compared to Goldfarb’s). His arguments are based on the economics of not doing the “modernization” required to allow larger, private jets to land in Aspen.
Most of the arguments hinge, however, on the assumption that owners of private jets are going to suddenly choose to fly elsewhere (or strangely, fly here but not buy aviation fuel) unless a more lavish, private terminal is constructed for them or they can’t use their latest and biggest plane to get here. I moved here 30 years ago and worked at the airport when I arrived. In those decades, little has been done to “upgrade” the fixed-base operation, yet private jet arrivals into Aspen have increased. I may simply be dumb, but I don’t understand what line he is drawing between what two points to support his argument that Aspen’s FBO must improve if it wants to keep those customers.
That’s the point I think Greg and Evan are missing. They may hope the community wants to keep those customers at all costs, but I don’t think they know the community that I know — and that community is firmly moving toward “uncrowded by design.”