Future of Burbank Airport

In your editorial Aug. 9 on the Burbank Airport dispute (“Reconcile Visions for Airport”), you endorse noise mitigation measures such as “noise containment areas” and takeoff and landings over sections that are less densely populated.

The area you are referring to must be Palmdale. I agree, the planes at Burbank could roll into the walled and covered noise-containment areas, rev up their engines and taxi onto large flatbed trailers and then (be) trucked out to Palmdale for takeoff.

The process will be reversed for landings. I think The Times has come up with a solution that will please everyone. Where do I sign up?

STAN HYMAN

Burbank

* Re: Burbank Airport editorial Aug. 16, (“Cities Must Strike Deal”), I was one of the residents who was privileged to make a presentation on behalf of several thousand Studio City residents to administrator Jane Garvey at last week’s very crucial meeting.

I wholly agree with The Times that the new administrator has helped breathe some fresh air into the Burbank Airport controversy.

However, The Times continues to make one crucial mistake in its assessment of the dispute and the possibility for compromise.

The Times continues to miscast one of the potential resolutions, a mandatory nighttime curfew, as either beyond the purview of the authority or the FAA, or else anathema to Valley businesses. Both suggestions are either wrong or wrongheaded.

First, contrary to the authority’s spin, it does have the power, should the FAA give its blessing, to institute a mandatory curfew. Such a curfew would require further study but it is entirely possible, if the authority is willing to compromise and show some political will and acumen.

Second, mandatory curfews at both John Wayne and San Jose airports have not stalled significant economic growth in the communities surrounding those airports.

Inasmuch as the authority and The Times recognize that there are currently only a handful of flights between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., it is illogical to presume that restricting those few flights will either significantly disrupt interstate commerce (the standard applied by the FAA), or dramatically impact Valley businesses.

The authority also continues to ignore the likely depression in home values if substantially increased air traffic causes homeowners to look elsewhere for peace and quiet.

Valley businesses rely as much on stable, affluent communities to support their growth as on the airport.

CHRISTOPHER BARNES

Member Part 150 Study

Advisory Committee

Studio City

* Your recent article (“Cities Must Strike Deal”) seems to reflect further the blinders that the Burbank Airport Authority has placed on your Valley editorial staff.

This Aug. 16 article speaks to only the “warring” parties being Burbank and the airport authority.

You well should know that members of the House of Representatives, reflecting concerns of large numbers of populations west of Burbank Airport, arranged for Jane Garvey to be at last week’s meeting.

We know there were leaders representing several communities in the Los Angeles part of the San Fernando Valley.

We know that the Burbank Airport terminal has to be moved for safety reasons; we don’t believe increasing the number of gates and flights is for the public good, health and safety.

Please show your readership the objectivity you have been known for and recognize the commentary of others opposed to airport expansion in this heavily populated area.

JACK ABRAMS

North Hollywood