MyBurbank is in with its position statement on next week’s Measure B (the illegally framed referendum that was deliberately and misleadingly named after the much more popular initiative from the year 2001 so that it would have an easier time of winning). Naturally, they’re all for a big new airport terminal.
Because it’s chock full of the same boosterish bullshit we’ve been hearing all year, let’s take this thing apart for good:
With some portions of the current terminal at Bob Hope Airport exceeding 85 years in age and the continuing changing scope that is today’s transportation, myBurbank supports a YES vote on Measure B in the coming election on November 8.
After reviewing the information presented by both sides of the argument, there seems to be many different opinions. Some people we have talked with think it is about expansion, even becoming an international terminal.
A YES vote on Measure B will give the Airport Authority permission to go ahead with its plans of building a new terminal in another area of the airport’s property. The new terminal will only be allowed the same 14 gates that the current terminal has now. While it is a ‘new’ terminal, it is in fact a replacement terminal.
Lie No. 1. It’s a brand new terminal that’s almost 50 percent larger than what we have now. And it’ll be able to service a much larger user base as well — which is the whole idea behind its planning and construction. Let’s get real about this. Why else is it bigger?
People have said that a new terminal will create more flights. That is not necessarily the case because 14 gates are in place now. It is up to the airlines how many flights a day they use the gates that they lease out, along with FAA approval. All air routes are first approved by the FAA. The amount of flights allowed a day has to take into account how long a plane is at an airport gate to both deplane, reload, take on fuel and have luggage taken off and reloaded.
The number of gates has no direct relationship to the number of possible scheduled flights. With a new terminal they could without a whole lot of effort double up the business, especially since there won’t be a nighttime curfew. Remember that forsaken promise?
The voluntary curfew will remain intact. Remember, it is a voluntary curfew, which has been in place for many years. The Authority, along with Burbank officials, will continue to push for a mandatory curfew, although in all honesty will probably happen as fast as peace in the Middle East is achieved.
It is with hope that a new terminal, while larger in size than the old terminal, will maintain the charm and ease of use as the old one. Passengers always comment how easy it is to get in and out of Burbank, hopefully that will be taken into account. The Authority has also promised boarding in the front and rear of planes still which is a bonus that most airports wish they had.
That’s a lot of “hope” there, isn’t it? If you want to vote hope, put the Dalai Lama’s name on the ballot instead. Not this scheme.
The largest argument is that Burbank would lose control if Measure B passes. The measure will give Burbank a ‘Super Majority’, which means that it only takes two Burbank Commissioners to vote something down. Opponents will say that the Authority can now vote on anything on its own and take Burbank out of the loop and go against the best interests of the City. While that is true in fact, a City Council who vets its airport commissioners thoroughly, would still have the control needed. The Burbank City Council appoints three members and it would only take two to stop something. It is like the President appointing a United Nations’ representative. He will do the country’s bidding or he will be replaced. The City Council has that same leverage.
There’s no leverage if the decision has already been made. In this case “You’re fired!” is something you only see on TV. And what happens if you get a boosterish city council in there someday, with a Mayor Rizotti type in charge? They’ll cheer it on, especially if it’s just “a little expansion…” This supermajority scam-promise only applies to gate increases anyway; it won’t control any normal expansion in airport business that will be much easier to affect with a naturally larger facility. Which like we just pointed out is why it’s being built larger. It’s not for the fancy snack bars.
Are there some questions ahead? Yes. Is this a perfect solution? Hopefully.
Perfection. Now that would be a first.
There is a desire that the new terminal looks to the future as well as the present. We have to look at new forms of transportation in the future. High Speed Rail and MetroLink need to be planned for. The Regional Transportation Center will now be a greater distance from the terminal and a solution will be needed to make the transition for passengers seamless.
Which of course won’t make it a busier airport. Right. That they just assured us wouldn’t happen with a simple “replacement” terminal.
While some proponents have stated that the FAA says that the current terminal is unsafe is not true. New guidelines for new terminals have a suggested distance away from runways and while those regulations went into effect long after the Burbank terminal was originally built, they are guidelines for new terminals. The new terminal would follow these guidelines. If the current terminal was unsafe by FAA standards today, no airline would be permitted to operate from the facility.
The new terminal will also employ the newest security measures that are needed in today’s climate and mandated by the Federal Government.
While the new 14 gate replacement terminal will be larger, there will also be more amenities in place for passengers. New restaurants, lounges and other features will not only accommodate more passengers, but will lead to more tax revenue generated for the City. A passenger friendly airport will also make Burbank more of a destination of choice which will in turn help the local economy through hotel stays (bed tax) and local retail sales.
A “more of a destination of choice” without it being any busier or more impactful to the city? That’ll be a nice one to pull off. Didn’t they just say that this “replacement terminal” won’t be any bigger or busier than what we already have? Don’t worry, folks!
It is time to look ahead Burbank. There was opposition to removing the ‘Golden Mall’ and replacing it with the Downtown Burbank that exists today. A Downtown Burbank, in fact, that is thriving and putting tax dollars into the Burbank coffers that pay for a top of the line police and fire department among other services.
Thriving? Maybe if you’re 16 and stupid. And this constant Golden Mall bashing has become wearying. The Mall thrived too for the first few years after 1968. Anyone remember how far downhill this downtown Burbank of ours had gotten before it was built? That’s why it got built! Sees and Mode O’ Day were its premier stores. The Mall’s a bad example of anything bad or stupid in Burbank. Or even reactionary. It was quite ahead of its time, too, btw…
So with that said, myBurbank, as the only news source located in Burbank and run by Burbank residents who have skin in the game, recommends a YES vote on Measure B on November 8. Be sure to vote on Election Day!
And paid for by the local business interests, who all know that a new “replacement” airport terminal will generate more business for them. Which is reason enough to vote “No.” Plus, it’s not needed. We like the one we already have, so much so that the boosters are now ridiculously lying about how this wonderful new “replacement” will still use stairways and rear boarding.
Small is Beautiful. Let’s keep it that way.