An Attempt to Limit Noise

Feger: If you listen to the members of the community, the bigger fear is growth at this airport. The lesser fear is the known quantity of what they have today. The problem is not that great today. In fact, with the measures that the authority has taken, with the home sound insulation program, with the continual quieting of the fleet as older aircraft get retired, the problem is actually diminishing here.

But the fear that the community has had is that over time the growth that this airport could experience could overcome the improvements that have been made to date. The desire to achieve a curfew is as much or more driven by the future as it is by the present.

It’s hard to do a cost/benefit analysis — we spent $6-to-7 million doing this study, compared to a voluntary curfew. The concern is the voluntary curfew compliance rate is going to go down as well.

There are a lot of aircraft that leave this airport right at 7 a.m. The 7 o’clock push, over time if there’s a lot of growth here, you’ll see that is where the voluntary curfew will deteriorate, between 6 and 7 a.m. That’s the pressure here.

AB: How would you characterize the mood of the community? Angry? Trying to co-exist with the airport?

Feger: It isn’t a constant.

If you go back in time, there was a lot of angry sentiment towards this airport. Way back in time, when this was a really noisy airport with the old 727 military operations, there was a tremendous anti-airport sentiment. But over the years — especially in the past couple of years — that sentiment has died down, again because the problem has diminished.

The threat of expansion of the airport has been diminished as well. The airport authority entered into a development agreement with the City of Burbank that, beginning in 2005, for a period of ten years we wouldn’t even talk about a new terminal.

So there’s this ten-year cooling off period where people that live around the airport don’t have to worry about expansion. It’s a very significant factor in the dimunition of the anti-airport sentiment.

In the last election in the City of Burbank the airport was not a topic. It’s not on the radar right now.

AB: A related issue is that if you’re successful in getting your curfew, there are other airports that could be impacted.

Feger: Our 161 study identified that there was potential to shift some of the aircraft that fly at night to other airports, principally Van Nuys Airport. One of the measures that the airport authority adopted as part of a resolution was that we believe that all of the residents of the valley should enjoy the same nighttime noise relief that happens here at Burbank. As a result the airport authority would support the same type of curfew that we get here at Van Nuys. If we get a nighttime full curfew here, we would support the same thing at Van Nuys.

That would help diminish the shifting effect.

People who fly at night usually can choose to fly at night. People flying at night are mostly general aviation and air cargo operations. All of our scheduled departures are before 10 p.m. Most of the general aviation folks could choose to fly at a different time. If there wasn’t a convenient airport like Van Nuys for them to fly out of, there’s a high likelihood they would choose not to fly at night.

In L.A., Part 161 x 2

The Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners in March awarded a $6.48 million contract to Harris Miller Miller and Hanson, Inc., of Burlington, MA, for FAR Part 161 noise studies at Los Angeles International (LAX) and Van Nuys (VNY) Airports. Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), which oversees both facilities, is the first airport authority in the U.S. to embark on two simultaneous Part 161 studies at separate airports. In addition, the VNY study is the first in the U.S. to attempt to implement multiple proposed noise and access restrictions.