Fighting Back at SMO

The Santa Monica city council voted unanimously yesterday to increase the landing fees at the airport by about 250%. Even some based at the airport feel the battle is trending badly for SMO’s continued viability.

I agree with them. The biggest bite doesn’t come from the fee itself as much as the fact that aircraft based at Santa Monica are no longer exempt. So a student learning to fly at the airport will now have to pay thousands of extra dollars to achieve PTS-level proficiency as they get dinged for every single landing. A typical GA pilot or owner at SMO who flies, say, twice a month will face a similar financial burden. And that’s to say nothing of the precedent this sets for other airport operators. You can bet every one of them is watching the SMO situation closely.

The future for Santa Monica?
The future for Santa Monica?

These new fees are sure to weigh heavily on flight schools, if not cause their outright failure. Without them, the maintenance shops, restaurants, and other tenants will suffer as well. With traffic at the airport already down 50% from last decade, it’s hard to see how a steepening downward spiral could be avoided. I’m sure the Santa Monica council members will watch gleefully, awaiting the day when they can bulldoze large X’s in the runway, Daley-style.

Aviators may not like paying more, but we’ve been known to accept the hit if it’s for a good cause. Look no further than Catalina Airport, which currently socks visitors with a $25 landing fee. The airport is located in a remote area and is owned by a non-profit organization. Maintenance is frequently required on the runway, and it’s not cheap to get people and materials in and out to do that work.

Compare that with the situation in Santa Monica, where AOPA claims the city is justifying the need for yesterday’s massive fee hike with dishonest accounting.

Here’s a letter from NBAA to the city of Santa Monica detailing specific legal issues with the landing fee hike. And from AOPA:

The city says the higher fees will cover the airport’s operating expenses, including those for city-provided services such as insurance, risk management, and accounting support; and capital expenditures that are allocable to the airfield area.

But the financial data provided to the aviation community is unclear and does not appear to validate the need to increase revenue, said Bill Dunn, AOPA’s vice president of airports. “The city is not including income from ground leases, fixed-base operator fees, tie-down, or hangar fees as airport income against costs of airport operation,” he said. “And since Santa Monica has decided to not accept future federal grants, all runway, taxiway, and airport developments are now self-funded.”

Another problem with the proposal is that it removes the exemption in place for aircraft and businesses based at the airport, including flight schools, said Dunn. Local tenants already provide significant financial support to the airport though payment of taxes, hangar rents, and land leases, as well as fuel flowage fees. Transient operators do not, noted Dunn.

The city has a long record of seeking ways to restrict and reduce operations at the airport, said Dunn. “The record of city efforts to restrict is in the form of public meetings of city council and the Santa Monica Airport Commission, as well as reports in local newspapers and anti-airport groups,” he said. “Therefore, it appears to AOPA that the city is undertaking a very specific plan to create an economic disincentive for operators at the airport, including flight schools that will be charged for every touch-and-go operation.”

It makes me wonder if there is anyone outside the aviation industry who recognizes the importance of America’s aviation infrastructure. While China is busy building airports as fast as they can, we occupy ourselves by closing down runways in the very places they’re needed most.

Which is better, kids enjoying the miracle of flight, or another strip mall?
Which is better, kids enjoying the miracle of flight, or another strip mall?

This should concern every American, whether they’re directly involved in aviation or not. A municipality choking a vital reliever airport like Santa Monica is no different than tearing out a section of interstate because they don’t like the noise, pollution, or traffic it generates. It simply makes that entire transportation system less valuable for everyone, regardless of where they’re located.

A town’s decision to rip out chunks of a railroad or national highway would not be tolerated. Why is it allowed where runways are concerned? Just as cars are useless without road, airplanes are worthless without airports.

On paper, Santa Monica should not be able to close the airport at all. The land the airfield sits on was deeded to the city by the Federal government under the Surplus Property Act. The land grant contains a clause which states that the city must continue to operate the airport in perpetuity. Should that ever fail, the land automatically reverts to the Federal government. In theory, this clause should keep the aviation infrastructure intact by preventing random airport closures.

If only the reality matched. One needn’t look any further than Chicago’s former Meigs Field to see that enforcement has been lacking, and now the city leaders in Santa Monica are talking openly of using Chicago’s lawless, gangland-style disposal of Meigs as a brilliant example to follow.

It seems clear that if SMO and other airports are to be preserved, those who recognize their worth must fight back against this precedent. Far from being powerless, there are many things that can be done. I’m sure some of these ideas are already in progress, but here are just a few:

1. First and foremost, legal action by the FAA is needed, backed up by the California Pilots Association, AOPA, the Association of California Airports, the Friends of Santa Monica Airport, and others. Also, the city should be made to understand that any attempt at closure will result in the land reverting to the ownership and control of the Federal government under the Surplus Property Act.

2. I would love to see a serious recall campaign against city council members. Keep them looking over their shoulders rather than attacking one of the truly great and historic resources their city has to offer. If they want to play politics with the airport, why shouldn’t it return the favor?

3. The Freedom of Information Act offers a fantastic way to dig up the real financial statistics for Santa Monica Airport, making it easy to prove that SMO is not the drag on the city’s coffers that the council claims. From there, is it much of a leap to questions about the honest performance of their fiduciary duty?

4. The Socal aviation community is a large one. Rallies — big ones — at the airport on a regular basis would be an ideal way to raise awareness of what’s going on there and just how much the city stands to lose.

5. The Hollywood types who fly (Harrison Ford, Tom Cruise, Morgan Freeman, Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, etc.) should be appealed to directly for their personal assistance at council meetings, in the media, and elsewhere throughout Santa Monica. I’d love to see them go door-to-door if necessary. Their faces on billboards, meet-and-greets with them at SMO. You get the idea.

6. Major financial support is needed from AOPA’s political action committee to help fund the above. In the same vein, boycotts of Santa Monica businesses by those who support the airport should be considered. Let them see how important and beloved SMO truly is.

7. Educational efforts toward the Santa Monica community about the benefits of the airport in the form of op-eds, flyers, public forums, and so on. Polls show that most residents of the city aren’t opponents of the airport and don’t rank it as a top issue. They’re not the enemy. Once they understand how curfews, noise abatement flying, specific adherence to departure procedures, and other efforts are being made to minimize the impact of airport operations, they’re likely to be even more supportive. The move toward quieter, more fuel efficient aircraft will only lessen that impact going forward. Quieter Stage 4 jets, hybrid and electric aircraft, new propeller designs, and LSAs help reduce the noise footprint of airport activities. Leaded fuels are on the way out — do they know that? Funding for housing upgrades (improved windows, soundproofing, etc) has been used around other airports, it might help at Santa Monica as well.

It would be a shame to see one of America’s most historic airports fall by the wayside. That’s where we’re headed at the moment. Reversing the tide is possible, but it will require enough political pressure to make the city council see that their fortunes are better served by embracing SMO than digging it’s grave.

  10 comments for “Fighting Back at SMO

  1. May 3, 2013 at 7:19 pm

    Great post Ron! It is too easy to feel like a victim in these circumstances when really there are several things we can do, as you outlines very eloquently.
    I too fear for the future of aviation in this country.

    • May 4, 2013 at 11:17 am

      Exactly. It’s high time our GA airports were protected the way the rest of our infrastructure is.

  2. keithmendozasr
    May 7, 2013 at 10:05 am

    Here’s the deal, the squeaky wheel gets greased. Real estate developers who have been targeting our airports here in the US are constantly squeaking at politicians’ ears; either through campaign contribution or by inciting local citizens to go after the local airport. I think it’s high time that we in the GA start squeaking ourselves.

    • May 7, 2013 at 10:10 am

      It’s true — money talks. It’s ironic that the council is trying to effectively silence the airport community by ignoring all the revenue it generates.

  3. Graeme
    May 10, 2013 at 10:53 am

    Lets Say SMO goes away, and for good and the “little GA guys” end up being pushed out of there. Ok, so whats the population in West LA? What are the other viable options? CMA too far. its just VNY and HHR. If there is TRULY a need for GA in LA (considering the population of pilots) which is more likely? An alternative airfield or set up will be produced or set up, or that portion of GA pilots will simply die out along with the associated business

    • May 10, 2013 at 12:43 pm

      There are other GA fields around, including Compton, Whiteman, El Monte. Ironically, what makes them relatively inaccessible to those on the west side of L.A. is the overburdened ground-based transportation infrastructure.

  4. John J.
    May 19, 2013 at 1:27 pm

    Well said Ron. After attending the Venice Neighborhood Council meeting at Pen-Mar a few weeks ago and the SM City Council meeting where they voted to raise the landing fees, it became apparent that the loudest voices in opposition to SMO, the ones doing the organizing, have zero interest in anything except closing the airport. We could be flying pollution-less, silent, invisible aircraft with 100% safety record and it wouldn’t matter one bit. The normal, decent folks who I spoke with, who have got caught up in the hysteria generated by the anti-airport organizations, had no idea that unleaded auto fuel was a real option for some newer aircraft, Rotax powered LSA’s for example, but SMO has none for sale! Nor of Cessna’s new 182 “diesel”, or of Electric Aircraft or the myriad of efforts going on at NASA and in the aviation industry as a whole, developing quieter, cleaner and greener aircraft. And when I did have those conversations, and pointed out that SMO is part of a vast transportation system, they listened. If the City were truly forward thinking and weren’t just giving lip service to concerns about noise and pollution, they would be showcasing clean aviation technologies, supporting innovation and ensuring access for “the little guy” and GA in general. Maybe thats too big a job for them and its up to the private sector, or groups that support the effort, to shine the light. Thanks again for this post, I ran across it searching for”noise footprint smo” on the google FYI. – John

    • May 19, 2013 at 10:38 pm

      Thanks for the perspective “from the trenches”, John. It’s great to hear that residents genuinely listened when information about green aviation technologies and the overall transportation infrastructure were presented. As they say, the “squeaky wheel gets the grease”, so it only take a few vocal individuals to do a lot of damage to an asset like SMO.

      I’ve seen the same thing happen with the aerobatic box at Borrego Springs. IAC 36 will spend years building up good relations with the community and are well aware that just a few individuals can raise enough ruckus to cause problems with our 91.303 waiver.

      Thanks for helping “fight back” at SMO!

  5. June 3, 2013 at 10:13 pm

    Typhoon is the only restaurant on the airport property with a runway view and Spitfire Grill is across on Airport Avenue. The former restaurant The Hump was closed in 2010 after its chef and owner were arrested for serving whale meat.

Leave a Reply


Get the latest posts delivered to your mailbox: