I read the headline article on the airport site approval, and I was drawn to St. Joe Company CEO Peter Rummel's remarks about that "bright bridge to our future" which is embodied in "a truly regional commercial and industrial service airport", whatever that means. In 20 pages of remarks to the engineers and airport director last November, I asked why the project was relying on the very thin local air traffic and passenger demand, which do not justify this relocation. The public may not understand that FAA airport planning is a stately process not concerned with local "bright futures" and other such intangibles. The only way for a private citizen to be heard in the process is via access to the local "sponsor", in this case the Panama City/Bay County Airport Board and Industrial District, or "Airport Board". It appears that our sponsor is being co-opted rapidly into the "aviation department" of the St. Joe/Arvida Company.

I have argued quietly within this process for several months now, always saying that I would love to be proved wrong on the necessity, and particularly the urgency, of relocating this airport. Historically, air traffic and airport development have FOLLOWED economic development, not led it. Before my phone starts to ring, that history also includes Ft. Myers, the current St. Joe "model" for our bright future. The City of Panama City and the Bay County Commission each will appoint one Airport Board member in June; I hope the commissions will consider the broad public interest when making these appointments.

For some reason, this Board has accepted the premise that a remote industrial-park-cum-airport is needed, and I don't question their sincerity. I strenuously object to wrapping this speculative development plan in an arcane FAA planning process which has just enough wiggle room to let this project through a loose screen of criteria which apply to new airports, but not necessarily to existing ones. (The foundation of the relocation argument is "FAA Design Standards", which must be followed in new construction, but are grandfathered or waived frequently to recognize the value of many airports, like ours, which were designed earlier.)

The technicalities of all this can be numbing, and the public presentations by the advocates have glossed over the details, but let's sum it up this way: If all the passengers leaving Bay county today (about 500) were going to one destination (Atlanta? Memphis?), they could fly in four 737's with empty seats on every flight. Using the forecast on which this project is based, by the year 2020 they (about 900) can go in seven 737's and still have empty seats! Advocates have also ignored the unprecedented shift in the feeder-market airplane fleet. The U.S. airline fleet will be 20 percent regional jets of up to 90 seats by 2011. The airlines have spent billions to order these, as covered in Sunday's paper. Their plan is no secret: these "RJ's" are the future of small to medium city air service, and Bay county is on the low end of small.

Mr. Rummel is right, our public future and a large part of his company's future, depends on the (rapid) economic development of Bay county. I don't think our existing communities and businesses will proportionately share the added value from "investing" $250 million public dollars, years in advance of any commercial or industrial need, and decades before passenger traffic will support it. If the Airport Board and St. Joe/Arvida are really serious about this project, they should put Bechtel on hold, slow down for six months and explain to the public how they will use this "investment" for broad economic development, using economic forecasts instead of an FAA methodology which fails in this purpose. If it's a good idea, let's do it together over 10 or 12 years, in a totally responsible way (because our bright future is really in protecting St. Andrew's Bay and the viability of our heritage communities and cities).

There is no hurry that is driven by air service requirements. No airline has ever voluntarily requested to serve here and withdrew because of airport deficiencies, and no study has been done on the market differences between the present and future location (if I will have to drive 30 miles west to the new airport, and I can save $200 per ticket by driving 40 more miles, why would I stop?). These are the kind of questions which should be addressed by the Airport Board before spending $250 million.

Because of the closed FAA process, I will take my argument to the Bay County Planning Board on April 19 at 4 PM, asking them not to support a "Sector Plan" to fast-track this project from Tallahassee. I hope the meeting will be well attended.

Don Hodges
College Point
April 18, 2001