Lessons for Pitkin County Commissioners, courtesy of the Snowmass City Council

On October 14, I attended the Snowmass Village City Council meeting and heard Amory Lovins and Chuck Butler – representatives of Aspen Fly Right and Citizens Against Bigger Planes and proponents of Ballot Question 200 – give their thoughts on the future of Aspen-Pitkin County Airport. I also heard from Michael Miracle and George Newman – representatives of A Whole Lot of People for a Better Airport and proponents of Ballot Question 1C. The 200 supporters want to give voters the right to decide whether to move forward with proposed changes to the runway, which would allow planes with longer wingspans to access the airport. The 1C supporters want to keep airport decisions in the hands of Pitkin County commissioners.

A week later, Snowmass Village Mayor Bill Madsen offered a resolution supporting 1C. The other council members said they couldn’t support it, so Bill withdrew it.

Pitkin County Commissioners, take note!

As a resident of Aspen for 37 years, and with no stake in the outcome, I applied for the umbrella ASE Vision Committee six years ago, and was invited to join. At our first meeting, I suggested to the chairman, former Aspen Mayor John Bennett, that all members share potential conflicts of interest. He didn’t respond.

When I asked Pitkin County Manager Jon Peacock about the scope of our responsibilities, he said not to worry about the private plane/fixed base operation. I asked why the restriction, since 83% of our traffic came from private planes. He replied that our focus was on the commercial side and the replacement of the Bombardier CRJ-700s. That seemed strange because I knew the airlines wouldn’t seek community input when purchasing aircraft; The focus would rightly be on their best business decision.

My experience with the Vision Committee was that the province controlled our agendas and seemed unresponsive to exploring all options. I also sensed that a replacement for the CRJ-700 existed, even though we were told no such equipment existed.

My takeaways:

● Airport Committees: 123 community members were elected to the five ASE Vision Committees. When the time came for a final vote, about sixty members, spread across the five committees, remained. I don’t consider an attrition rate of nearly 50% to be a useful indicator of the community’s views. I concluded that a vote of the people, solely on the size and location of the runway, was just and fair. Ballot Question 200 does not strip the Pitkin Board of County Commissioners of their power to make general executive decisions at the airport.

● Safety: When United Airlines announced the purchase of 19 Embraer E-175s – which will be used at ASE this winter and could ensure commercial traffic to Aspen Airport for decades to come – I thought that settled the matter. Then I heard the words “safety” and “safer” repeated constantly by the pro-growth 1C coalition. Make no mistake: the airport is safe; the FAA would shut it down if it didn’t.

I also know that larger planes are less maneuverable; for example when they have to break off. We know we have a narrow canyon, thin air at high altitude, wind swirling over Owl Creek and sudden storms. Airplanes fly in and out on the same runway, head-on. 43 of our 44 recent accidents involved private aircraft, many of which were attributed to pilot error. None of these realities will be changed by a wider or more separated runway. When Highway 82 was widened, did that make it safer?

● FAA: Contrary to what Auden Schendler and others say, ASE now meets federal safety standards! As John Bauer of the FAA stated last year, the FAA is not in the business of downgrading airports. ASE can never be a complete Airport Design Group III airport; we will always have many changes. There is nothing standard about ASE! The FAA stands for access, which means the county cannot unfairly discriminate against or deny access to aircraft that fall within the wingspan restriction, regardless of whether they are older or newer.

● Atlantic Aviation: Although the permanent contract for Atlantic Aviation has not yet been signed, it is much more financially beneficial for the province. Rebuilding the runway will likely cost less than the $247 million estimate presented to the Airport Advisory Board on March 21. If we broaden this, we open ourselves up not only to new private planes, but also to older, dirtier, noisier private planes. aircraft with a larger wingspan (again, we cannot discriminate against aircraft). When we widened Highway 82, did we only see new cars?

In confidence, I have seen correspondence indicating that Gulfstream 650 owners would like to land here with their larger wingspan. I also believe that “if we build it, they will come,” given the appeal of our valley to people of means who own both old and new private aircraft.

● BOCC: By putting 1C on the ballot, Pitkin County commissioners are repeating what has already been written about their sovereignty. I asked at one of their meetings what they were afraid of, and why they talked to everyone about their responsibilities, but not to their constituents. They may have deliberately added confusion to the debate with 1C. I would remind anyone who is concerned about the change to our Home Rule Charter that it has been amended some fifty times since its adoption in 1978, at the insistence of the Commissioners.

The public has not been well served by the ASE Vision process, nor by the Airport Advisory Board, some of whose members appear to have been chosen for their pro-growth opinions. The natural consequence of the county’s failure to respond to all alternatives in the ASE Vision process is Citizen-Sponsored Ballot Question 200, which seems fair and necessary no matter which way it goes.

Vote yes on 200 and no on 1C.

Jackie Merrill is a Buttermilk area resident and served on the ASE Vision Committee in 2019-2020.