I attended the FAA’s NextGen workshop on Monday and was relieved to hear some of my concerns with the new satellite air traffic control system can be put to rest. However, I’m not completely convinced we residents can let our guard down. The FAA is being sued all over the country and they certainly would not answer any questions regarding those complaints. “Sorry we can’t comment due to the current lawsuits” was the standard line and I heard it at least three times. I want to be clear that I believe there will eventually be an increase in the number of flights in and out of the new terminal here in Burbank. The FAA has publically stated air travel is expected to increase by 50% by 2025 (from 2011 levels.) This NextGen video I produced still rings true as far as capacity and an increase in flights. After all, I took the footage directly from the FAA YouTube channel! But it’s looking like Burbank may be spared a lot of what has plagued other cities. I certainly hope so and I do feel good about what I heard at the workshop. Anyway on to the good news. Here are some bullet points that outline what I learned at the workshop:
- The FAA promises flight paths that will affect noise patterns around the airport will not be changed or they will change very little.
- The FAA agreed takeoffs of large jets to the east are theoretically possible once the old terminal is demolished but there are no plans to do so for the foreseeable future. (see below)
- NextGen is all about efficiency and safety. It absolutely makes it possible for more flights in and out of the airport but the FAA doesn’t control this, the airlines and the airport do.
- NextGen flight paths have only been flown in simulators, none of the paths have been flown by air carriers yet. Nothing has changed according to the FAA.
- When NextGen is rolled out in the spring, there will be a few weeks of reduced flights to ensure the system is working safely.
So if we take them at their word we have little to worry about. I do believe these folks from the FAA are being honest. Their job is to get people from point to point safely. But here are some concerns I have even after the workshop:
- The noise studies used to predict any changes were all conducted using computer models and not real data from airports including Burbank. Could this be the reason the FAA is being sued all over the country for noise increases? What did the computer models miss that people on the ground are so angry about?
- A study was conducted in 2008 with an accompanying report titled “Increasing Airport Capacity Without Increasing Airport Size” that states that NextGen could allow large aircraft to take off to the east in Burbank. (page 9) As I stated above, FAA reps say that is unlikely and “airlines have not asked for it.” Residents should be paying attention for any changes once the old terminal is demolished.
- If you live under the revised flight paths you may experience a lot more noise as planes will fly in very narrow lines after takeoff. Currently planes are spread out. After NextGen takes effect in the spring the “lanes” will be very precise.
- FAA reps were adamant that only the airlines and the airport can increase the amount of flights in or out of the airport. I for one believe we will see in an increase as I’ve stated.
Potential eastward takeoffs and higher rate of departures illustrated:
The Burbank Leader article on the workshop explains how residents who were concerned with the airport are cautiously optimistic about the changes that are coming along with NextGen. I’m one of those people. Glad to hear the flight paths will change very little but also wondering if in a few years we’ll be filing suit against the FAA as so many other cities have done over noise increases. Councilman Will Rogers has gone out of his way to paint myself, this blog and Save Burbank Neighborhoods as “nutball” conspiracy theorists. He’s wrong. Here’s what we were right about:
- NextGen was never brought up to the public before I started asking questions.
- NextGen was designed to increase airport capacity nationwide without constructing new runways.
- The Measure B vote was RUSHED to the ballot in November. We asked for the vote to be moved to a municipal election so we had more time to ask questions.
- The City Council was asked numerous questions from concerned citizens not affiliated with myself or SBN about NextGen. They remained silent; adding to the sense that something was rotten about the whole thing.
- We voters have every right to be concerned with modified flight procedures that have resulted in NextGen lawsuits all over the country. The council never spoke up to assuage those fears.
Will Rogers, Emily Gabel-Luddy, Jess Talamantes and Bob Frutos failed us on Measure B. And for a second act, they are protecting their friends from the airport and Chamber of Commerce who misappropriated public money to campaign for a Yes on Measure B vote.
February 2, 2017 at 5:00 pm
I had to cut the last paragraph of this article so the Mayor’s son would allow it to be posted to the City of Burbank Facebook Page.
LikeLike
February 2, 2017 at 7:16 pm
The same Will Rogers who bragged that knew about the illegal $50K donation to “Yes on B” prior to the election and — for reasons known only to him — didn’t say anything? That Councilman Will Rogers?
LikeLike
February 3, 2017 at 8:57 am
Yep. The guy who ignores people who speak at Council. (We have this on camera, most people don’t see it when they watch channel 6) The same guy who goes out of his way to insult people who speak up at Council meeting. That guy.
LikeLike
February 3, 2017 at 8:31 am
NextGen was never brought up by councilmembers because it would have no effect on the landing/departure paths over Burbank. The number of takeoffs and landings are limited by the surrounding mountains, nearby airports and physical runway configuration. Also a limiting factor are number of gates at the proposed 14 gate terminal, the same number that exist today.
Currently, the airport operations are below capacity and passenger counts are actually lower than in years past. With or without NextGen airport operations can increase substantially. That will be determined by market forces and the physical runway constraints and gates, and the airport today can in theory reach capacity under current FAA air traffic control.
While a fair argument can be made on the continuation of the airport itself, the airport commission and the role it will play in our community’s future, NextGEn will not change anything at BUR and adjacent residents except make landings quieter due to increased use of “throttle idle” on landings and less idle time on taxiways before takeoff, which makes for safer operations, less pollution and lower fuel costs for the airlines.
City Council does not control the FAA, and you or your neighbors are free to petition the FAA as a group or as an individual if you feel NextGen is detrimental to the Burbank community. Other cities and airports do have legitimate questions due to NexGen, but I feel is not a priority for our council to discuss. Groups can and should question how Measure B was handled and whether the city and/or airport authority is looking after Burbank’s best interests. I believe on several occasions they don’t, but that is for another thread.
I believe council should spend their time and resources on the pressing items they directly control, especially when there is no evidence BUR arrival/departure paths and frequency will change.
LikeLike
February 3, 2017 at 9:04 am
Since Measure B passed and NextGen is already being implemented there’s not much else to say. Except that I didn’t know you were a spokesman for the City Council and their actions or in this can in-actions. Seeing as the four pro-airport boosters on the council were working in concert with the airport authority to get Measure B passed; why would they bring up an issue that has lead to multiple lawsuits in the region? Because they knew the public wouldn’t get behind the new terminal. And one last thing, the entire reason NextGen exists is to upgrade the airlines to FedEx levels of efficiency. The FAA has said this over and over. There will be more flights as the years go on per the FAA.
LikeLike
February 3, 2017 at 10:17 am
What I posted above were my opinions. I was not in total “support” of Measure B (I believe the terminal itself is an embarrassment and a modern replacement would not cost Burbank taxpayers any scarce city funds), nor do I personally think the $50K donation was a good call or even legal under California code. I do not speak or shrill for the council. I do not agree with a lot of policies coming out of city hall, but I respect all the council members and staff as individuals and think to a person they are good people trying to make a difference. Doesn’t mean I agree with them on all issues. I don’t and I told them that on many, many occasions.
If it was up to me I would close BUR. Santa Monica Airport will be closed in ten years.
My opinion about NextGen ***at BUR*** still stands. More flights depend on market forces, which are capped by the current limited runway capacity at the airport. More flights may or may not happen. Right now flights could be substantially increased… with or without NextGen.
Any aircraft operations under 3000 feet are controlled by BUR tower. This hasn’t changed. Takeoff and final approach paths have not changed. Runway configuration and capacity has not changed. Number of gates will remain constant.
Only thing that can change is how many flights airlines will schedule at BUR. And that was or is not NextGen dependent.
LikeLike
February 3, 2017 at 10:19 am
Fair enough.
LikeLike
February 3, 2017 at 11:39 am
Oh for heaven’s sake, here we go again for the umpteenth time.
RALPH: “More flights may or may not happen. Right now flights could be substantially increased… with or without NextGen.”
TRUE, and NextGEN and/or a bigger more efficient airport allows faster turnaround times, hence more processing of aircraft, IF the airlines choose. So, INDEED, NextGEN or a bigger more efficient terminal, like was voted on, does give the possibility for an airline to increase their routes EVEN MORE than without one or both of the aforementioned. No selective points, JUST THE FACTS.
RALPH: “Any aircraft operations under 3000 feet are controlled by BUR tower. This hasn’t changed.”
STRAWMAN argument, has nothing to do with the concern in the topic/article. Just a distraction from the other facts and concerns.
RALPH: “Takeoff and final approach paths have not changed. ”
HALF-TRUTH. “…have not changed” YET! But, they can and will. If for nothing more, NextGEN allows aircraft to fly in a tighter, narrower range, so that in itself is a path changed….result there being the poor people below in the “tighter, narrower range” get even more NOISE and POLLUTION.
RALPH: “Number of gates will remain constant.”
THIS AN OPINION as there are ZERO contract or policies inacted that mandate the AA as to keep the gate count at 14 gates. Plus, the proposed BIGGER TERMINAL can handle more gates if wanted and the AA has the right to expand the new terminal or build a second one. See, folks, these were the devil in the details many tried to inform you on hence not wanting the city to support a RUSHED VOTE in Nov. 2016 versus the general election in 2017. But, 4 council members Gabel-Luddy, Frutos, Talamantes and Rogers voted to rush the vote…many believe to ensure the public didn’t catch on to what they would, truly, be voting on.
RALPH: “Only thing that can change is how many flights airlines will schedule at BUR. And that was or is not NextGen dependent.”
Another STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. THIS IS THE KOOL-AID SPIN USED BY THE PROPONENTS. Bottom line, NextGEN allows airlines the ability to add EVEN MORE FLIGHTS, and given the growth the elite want for BURBANK, that possibility keeps getting ever closer.
LikeLike
February 3, 2017 at 11:38 pm
Thank you David for respecting my opinion. Others seem to feel their opinion is the only one that matters.
LikeLike
February 4, 2017 at 6:55 am
Ralph, I’m quite confident others have bore witness to your passive/aggressive posts and replies in your attempts to one-up or spin….that’s what “matters” to me, right, “sport”!
LikeLike