Airport Opportunity

Three events--a state appellate court ruling, a Federal Aviation Administration opinion and an election--could provide the push needed for the two sides in the battle over expanding the Burbank Airport to at least approach the negotiating table again. Whether any accommodation can be reached, of course, depends on what each side is willing to give up once they get there.

The judges ruled that the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, which runs the airport on behalf of the three cities, lacks an “exclusive and unrestricted right” to develop a new terminal site without Burbank’s approval.

It’s hard to see the court ruling as anything but a blow to the Airport Authority’s side in the dispute. After all, its 9 members had voted 6 to 3 to develop the site over the city of Burbank’s objections. (The three opposing votes, needless to say, came from Burbank’s representatives.)

But just when Burbank was savoring its victory, it suffered its own blow. The FAA’s chief counsel issued an opinion that said, in so many words, that Burbank lacks an exclusive and unrestricted right to halt night flights. According to the opinion, the city is not exempt, as it has argued, from a 1990 federal law saying only the FAA can impose caps and curfews and only after a lengthy study.

For anyone new to this long-running fray, Burbank fears that an expanded terminal would result in additional flights, and therefore more noise and traffic to bother Burbank residents. The city wants an enforceable curfew on night flights in exchange for its trouble, a guarantee the Airport Authority claims is virtually impossible to obtain from the FAA.

This is where the two sides have dug in their heels, resorting to costly lawsuits and public relations campaigns when negotiations failed. With the recent court ruling, maybe the time has come to get creative about how to allay Burbank’s concerns rather than press for more (and more expensive) appeals.

Burbank has said all along that because it bears the brunt of the noise, traffic and other negative effects from the airport, it should get more consideration than the other cities when it comes to whether those effects are increased--or how any increases could be mitigated. Fair enough.

But it doesn’t seem right that Burbank should have veto power over development of a facility that serves two other cities, not to mention the entire Los Angeles region. Burbank needs to keep its responsibilities to the larger community in mind as it approaches the negotiating table, even as the Airport Authority needs to reconsider what it can do for Burbank.

And indeed, Burbank is unlikely to back away from a new terminal completely. If there’s one thing all sides have been able to agree on, it’s that the old terminal is just that, old, as well as uncomfortably crowded and built too close to one of the runways.

Now, what more can the two sides find in common? This is where the recent election comes in. Both Glendale and Burbank elected new city council members who at least say they want to work together to find a resolution. Here is an opportunity to put their words into action.