Aug. 15--Southwest Airlines is accustomed to a little more adulation than the airline received when it announced its plan last month to move its Puget Sound-area operations from Sea-Tac Airport to Boeing Field.
In many communities, Southwest's presence means lower airfares, more frequent service and the end of a legacy carrier's monopoly grip on a community.
And though Southwest promised to spend $130 million of its own money to build a terminal and parking garage at Boeing Field, and to more than double the number of its flights, the proposal met with near-universal disdain.
The Seattle Chamber of Commerce condemned it. King County Council members threatened to stop it. Seven members of the Washington congressional delegation called the plan foolish. Seattle community groups from Magnolia to Alki said the airline's plan and the noise from its planes were unwelcome.
The hometown airline, Alaska, said the plan was unfair. Eastern Washington communities complained the traffic diversion would threaten feeder airline service to their towns. And the Port of Seattle, Sea-Tac's owner, said the move could portend financial distress.
Throughout the still-brewing controversy, Southwest's one steadfast friend has been King County Executive Ron Sims.
Sims, a liberal Democrat who is running for his third term as executive, seems to thrive on controversy -- whether it involves his unflagging dedication to controversial Sound Transit, his defense of his elections department executives in the face of a botched vote count or his choice of the 32nd floor of a downtown skyscraper for his offices.
To the affable 57-year-old executive, the whole dust-up over the possibility of Southwest's move to Boeing Field is surprising -- particularly in light of the business community's usual ardent desire to let free enterprise operate without the fetters of government. He sat down with The News Tribune to discuss the issues.
QUESTION: Who, besides Southwest and yourself, wants this move to happen?
ANSWER: The average person is on our side. My job is to represent the fullness of the public interest. The public wants low-cost airfares, and they don't want any tax money spent at the airport.
Q: But the Port of Seattle, Alaska Air Group, members of the congressional delegation and even the Chamber of Commerce oppose it.
A; As a government official, I'm always told to get government out of the way of the free-enterprise system. But what do they want? They want government to stand in the way of the free-enterprise system. And that's remarkable to me.
If I were a company looking to locate here and watching this debate, I would not believe that we are an area that embraces the free-enterprise system. It's a fundamental attack on free enterprise.
Q: The Port of Seattle says the move would raise expenses for the airlines remaining at Sea-Tac. How can this move be good for the traveling public?
A: The Port of Seattle was anticipating charging airlines $25 a ticket for using Sea-Tac, and as a result of our discussions with Southwest, they've reduced that to $14. So competition worked. Competition has already been a savings to the public and a substantial cost avoidance to the airlines.
The thing that amazes me is how easy the airport did it. They never had to operate in an environment that was sensitive to competition at all. They had a captured audience and they could pass on the costs to the passengers.
Q: As a champion of Sound Transit, are you concerned when the Port of Seattle says Southwest's move could jeopardize light rail getting to the airport?
A: What they're doing is hostage-taking. It's inappropriate. The port is committing a nominal amount to getting Sound Transit to the airport. The ironic thing is the port can't find money for a replacement road at the airport to clear the way for Sound Transit, but they've found a lot of money to take a waterfront trolley out to (the West Seattle offices of the biotech company) Amgen. I have no doubt they could make it happen.
In this case, the setting is Seattle, and the argument centers on whether Southwest will fly from sprawling Seattle-Tacoma Airport or the smaller King County Airport, also known as Boeing Field.
The 2,921 Southwest flights that went over noise-sensitive neighborhoods raise questions about how many flights the airline could send over Elliott Bay should a move to Boeing Field be approved.
Only five of the 56 homes are eligible for grants from the FAA, whose standards for inclusion are stricter than the port's.
Seattle-based Alaska Airlines sent a proposal to the King County Executive's Office late Friday outlining plans to offer 68 flights a day and to build a $150 million terminal with eight gates.