Pilots and the New Airport
A strong majority of pilots oppose the new airport. General aviation is the only robust business at the airport and it is insulting to dismiss it all as “recreational”. Airlines have vacated more gates and airspace than they will need for decades, and one does not have to be a pilot or an “expert” to see this. Airline passengers and operations (takeoffs and landings) have declined over the last six years, and the airport has raised passenger facility charges, parking, concessions, and airline/general aviation rents and charges to remain solvent. The airport executive department consumes over $1.50 per departing passenger, and the consulting fees for the new airport have been running double the operational budget for years. The “100 Palm” entrance road is desolate. The airport, new or old, has little influence on airline service decisions.
Meanwhile general aviation is healthy and its expansion is being hobbled to influence support for a replacement airport far from our community. If this project goes forward, Panama City will be the only sizable city in Florida without a paved community airport, having plowed it under for less money than it will take to grade, fill and destroy the wetlands and feeder creeks that sustain West Bay, not to mention the impact of redevelopment at the existing site.
Why would pilots, principal users of the airport, oppose relocation and expansion? Because the airport cannot literally be relocated - the reality is the existing airport is being destroyed unnecessarily and prematurely, in pursuit of a project that is not worth its cost in money or environmental damage. Most of the cost of a new airport is to duplicate the present facilities at a wetland location to serve communities that don’t exist. These communities should develop on their own merit and provide an airport, preferably away from the bay, when they can justify it. If that airport proves to be superior, it will attract traffic and the region will have two civil airports, just as Okaloosa/Eglin has three. In fact, pilots proposed a two-airport plan that could be developed in orderly phases, but the consultants could not see beyond their destructive plan.
The analysis by FAA was not to endorse the economic potential of the new airport or condemn the safety of the existing airport - it merely had to meet the letter of the law requiring a federal action to disclose and avoid or mitigate its consequences. Local people including NRDC members and pilots agree that the analysis does not meet the letter of the law, and we requested NRDC to help us challenge it. For whatever reason, “prominent” local environmentalists have decided to endorse the project. It is very easy to endorse because the advocates have spent over $40 Million in tax money, supplemented by untold special interest money managed by Dr. Wright, papering the supporting file and trumpeting the disputed results. A detailed reading of the entire administrative record, including comments and responses, leaves us unconvinced - everybody should read the entire record, not just the final documents.
When FAA finally evaluated the aviation benefits, it found that the new airport did not qualify for the type of FAA funding being requested, and FAA has approved less money and lower quality financial assurances than the airport applied for. This shifts more of the cost to the taxpayers and ultimately to airport users (passengers, services and pilots) who will pay year-2010-and-beyond rates and charges while still flying year-2000 air service and commuting millions of miles for the privilege. There has been no accountability for the bad forecasts and cost estimates, largely due to poor supervision. Bechtel was excused from its sweetheart contract, leaving a mess for the airport board to untangle. The result is a speculative finance plan that depends on the Florida treasury to bail out the airport if necessary. Before that, the project will be reduced to one runway and general aviation facilities outsourced or deferred - topics already being discussed by the airport board.
Pilots must be rational, competent - and considering the personal risk and cost involved - prudent in actions and finance. The airport board and the public agencies have shown far too little of these traits to gain our confidence and support. Paid shills and boosters need not even try.