====================================================================================
Aviation Conspiracy Newsletter
#57........................................................................April
2, 2000 ====================================================================================
First Airport "Privatization" Occurs In New York
===================================================================================
Citizens Demonstrate
Against New York's Stewart Airport's "Piratization:" Outraged over the
secrecy and lack of public involvement in the planning process,
local residents demonstrated their outrage at the Stewart Airport
Privatization "transition" ceremony. While politicians
like Gov. Pataki, Reps. Kelly, Gilman and others patted
themselves on the back for selling out the the public's health
and quality of life, the demonstrators protested, sometimes
loudly, their outrage. Read a story about it below or go to web
sites: 
http://www.pojonews.com/news/business/stories/bu040100s1.htm
http://www.pojonews.com/news/business/stories/bu040100s2.htm
http://www.pojonews.com/news/business/stories/bu040100s3.htm
http://www.pojonews.com/news/business/stories/bu040100s4.htm
http://www.pojonews.com/news/business/stories/bu040100s5.htm
Privatization not expected to spur a national
trend: That is one school
of thought in a Poughkeepsie Journal article on the Stewart
Airport Privatization. Read it below or it can accessed at the
web site: http://www.pojonews.com/news/business/stories/bu040100s6.htm
Anti-aviation expansion activists are also wondering about what
privatization means. How much taxpayer money will be used to
increase the profits of a private company (in the case of Stewart
Airport, a BRITISH company) by building infrasturcture at the
airport? Are any politicians taking foreign
"contributions" (bribes) to vote to improve a
foreigner's airport profits?
Jack
Saporito, President of USCAW, Wants You To Write To Clinton: The Aviation Pollution-Increase Bill
(HR 1000), also known as the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment
and Reform Act for the 21st Century and many other titles, is on
President Perjurer's desk awaiting his signature. Jack Saporito, jsaporito@aol.com wants
people to write to Clinton to demand (Is it worth the bother?) a
study of health impacts, as required by NEPA law, BEFORE this
massive expansion of aviation infrastructure takes place. See his
letter below.
FAA Chief
Garvey Drops Bomb On Burbank Nighttime Curfew: Once again showing the Clinton
Administration's lack of concern for the public's health by
dredging up the Aviation Cabal's favorite law, the
Airport Noise and Control Act of 1990. Gravey says local
airports cannot impose noise restrictions such as overnight
curfews without first completing a so-called Part 161 noise
study.. This effectively blocks the City of Burbank's effort to
ban night time flights at Burbank Airport. Read story below or go
to web site: http://www.latimes.com/editions/valley/20000331/t000030296.html
US To Respond Next Week In EU Hush Kit
Dispute: The US wants
the European Union to indefinitely suspend part of
the rules that affect non-EU countries
in return for a written US commitment to attain new international
noise standards under the auspices of the US-controlled http://pages.prodigy.net/rockaway/newsletter56.htm
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Read story on
it at: http://library.northernlight.com/FB20000331640000063.html?cb=0&dx=1006&sc=0#doc
Other Aviation Pollution Stories In The News
European Court of Human Rights to rule on nightly flights to Heathrow MAR 29, 2000, M2 Communications - The European Court of Human Rights is to consider whether night flights to London's Heathrow airport are violating nearby resident's rights to sleep undisturbed. http://library.northernlight.com/FC20000329190000117.html?cb=0&dx=1006&sc=0#doc
Residents near Korea's Kimpo International Airport file law suit for aircraft noise related health problems MAR 20, 2000, M2 Communications - A lawsuit has apparently been filed in the Seoul District Court, Korea by 67 residents living near Kimpo International Airport seeking state compensation for health problems related to aircraft noise. http://library.northernlight.com/FA20000320760000133.html?cb=0&dx=1006&sc=0#doc
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
NEWS STORIES
Privatization not expected to spur a national trend
By Elizabeth Lynch
Poughkeepsie Journal
Don’t expect the privatization of Stewart International Airport to set off a wave of airport privatization.
‘‘I don’t think it’s the start of any great trend in the United States,’’ said David Plavin, president of the Airports Council International North America.
The privatization of Stewart is part of a federal experiment. Four other U.S. airports, including Niagara Falls International Airport, were part of the pilot program created in 1996 by federal law. The law removed restrictions that required all profits from the operation of a publicly owned airport to be reinvested in the airport, which had in the past prevented privatization.
The Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority is in negotiations with a private company to operate the airport there.
‘‘At Niagara, maybe it can be a catalyst for better use of the facility,” said Terry Slaybaugh, director of aviation at the Greater Rochester International Airport and president of the New York Airport Management Association. ‘‘I think where you’ll see privatization efforts is where you have infrastructure where facilities are underutilized.’’
Friday, Gov. George Pataki handed over operations of New Windsor-based Stewart to National Express Group of the United Kingdom. NEG has a 99-year lease with the state to operate the airport.
Pitfalls of privatization
The danger to privatization, said Plavin, is that the private operator may fail to invest in the airport’s infrastructure toward the end of the lease if they are no longer making a profit.
‘‘Because they won’t have an obvious way of getting their money back,’’ said Plavin.
Most commercial airports, such as Stewart, are owned and operated by state or local governments. But there hasn’t been a push for privatization because most airports are self-contained and self-sustaining, said Plavin.
And that means they are not a burden on taxpayers. Publicly owned airports also have easy access to capital and function more like a business than government-owned airports in other parts of the world. Those factors combined reduce the demand for privatization, said Plavin.
‘‘I don’t think there’s any great incentive to do it because the airport system works well the way it is,’’ Plavin said.
Many airports privatize some part of their operations, whether it is security or food service, he said.
Michael Boyd of the Boyd Group, a Colorado-based aviation industry consultant, said overall, privatization is a positive move.
‘‘It does keep the dirty little political fingers out of the airport cookie jar,’’ he said.
But the possible privatization of an airport should be decided on a case-by-case basis. An airport is part of a community’s infrastructure, and like other types of infrastructure, such as sewer systems, they are needed but not necessarily profitable, Boyd said.
FAA Chief Cites Flaws in Burbank Airport
Plan
Aviation: Letter to city officials says under federal rules
closure of terminal at night--a de facto curfew on flights--would
require lengthy new noise study.
By ANDREW
BLANKSTEIN, Times Staff Writer
BURBANK--In a move officials said
could set back the new Burbank Airport terminal project up to two
years, FAA administrator Jane Garvey said the airport cannot
unilaterally close the terminal building overnight without a full
noise study.
In a March 24 letter to Burbank
city officials, Garvey wrote that "active barring of use of
the terminal would turn a voluntary curfew into a mandatory one
and would be impermissible without first complying with
applicable requirements of Part 161."
Under the rules spelled out in the
Airport Noise and Control Act of 1990, local airports cannot
impose noise restrictions such as overnight curfews without first
completing a so-called Part 161 noise study.
As a result of Garvey's letter,
Burbank city officials said they had no hope of enforcing a
terminal closure or outright curfew without completing the noise
study--which is expected to take two years. The proposed terminal
closure from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. was intended to skirt the need for
a formal noise study that would be required under a curfew.
"The nighttime closure was
designed to avoid the need for government approval," said
Peter Kirsch, special counsel for Burbank on airport issues.
"The administrator's letter makes clear that federal
approval would be required for any restrictions along the lines
of what the city wants, which will mean a delay of as long as two
years before the old terminal can be replaced."
Councilman Bob Kramer said city
officials will not accept a new terminal without a prohibition on
overnight airline flights. The airport now has a voluntary curfew
from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
"Sooner or later we have to
realize that Jane Garvey doesn't care about the people of
Burbank," Kramer said. "Maybe she would be more
cooperative if we said flat out, 'She's never going to see a new
terminal until we see a curfew and a cap on flights.' "
Garvey's letter came in response to
Burbank Mayor Stacey Murphy's call for the clarification of legal
questions raised in connection with the terminal framework
agreement signed last August by airport and city negotiators.
In addition to terminal closure,
Garvey cast doubt on other provisions in the terminal framework
including annual payments of $1.5 million in airport passenger
taxes to Burbank in lieu of lost sales taxes and direct payment
for such infrastructure improvements as new sewer lines and mass
transit upgrades.
Garvey pointed to progress on other
controversial aspects of the deal including a proposed ban on
easterly takeoffs, which has been opposed by Los Angeles
residents living south and west of the airport.
Nevertheless, Burbank officials
said eliminating their terminal closure proposal means the city
will now have to go back to the drawing board to address FAA
concerns.
Burbank Airport Executive Director
Dios Marrero said in a statement that he still saw hopeful signs
in Garvey's letter.
"The most telling thing about
the FAA letter and Burbank's reaction is the similarity they
share when it comes to further dialogue," Marrero said.
"Both Burbank and the FAA are saying we need to continue to
explore possibilities for moving forward. Our take is that a
meeting as soon as possible is the best thing to do."
The airport has been trying since
the 1980s to build a new terminal to better meet passenger demand
and relocate the existing 69-year-old facility, which is too
close to the east-west runway under modern FAA standards.
After a bitter legal and political
struggle, city and airport negotiators signed a tentative
agreement for a terminal development deal in August. But the
Burbank City Council has yet to vote on the proposal, and this
week it voted to put any proposal it approves to city voters.
Councilman Bill Wiggins said he
wasn't sure how long construction of the new terminal would be
delayed but said time was of the essence because of the impending
May 24 deadline for a completed development deal and a December
deadline for the airport to break ground on a terminal or lose
federal funding.
"It may take an extended
period of time," Wiggins said. "But it's in the best
interest of all the affected parties to sit down and work out a
deal."
Kirsch said he was hoping a meeting
between city, airport and FAA officials could win a comment from
Garvey to expedite both reaching a deal and completing federal
reviews.
Jack Saporito's Alliance letter to
president :
-----------------
By facsimile and regular mail
March 31, 2000
The Honorable William Jefferson Clinton, President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Sir:
Our alliance of environmental, health and civic organizations and
municipalities is urging you to veto The Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment
& Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) [HR1000].
Instead, we call on you
to order comprehensive, objective health and environmental
studies and proper
mitigation that includes other means of communication and mass
transit.
We ask your veto for the following reasons:
· Existing environmental and public health safeguards for
aviation do not
work.
· This bill will massively increase aviation and hence, its
seriously
negative aspects that are already unacceptable. These include a
reduction in
safety, more serious public health problems, significant
environmental and
upper atmospheric damage, a weak foundation to protect natural
quiet in our
national parks and many other quality of life issues.
· Airports and aircraft operations produce extraordinarily
massive amounts of
serious and deadly pollutants into the air, water and ground and
even the
present day situation has no restraint and no meaningful
solution.
· Aviation is an enormously polluting industry whose vast
quantities of
toxics, particulates and carcinogens and other serious deadly
pollutants are
emitted into the air, water and ground. They are released
next to major
population centers that ultimately could affect the health of as
much as 70%
of our nation’s population.
· The waters of the United States are becoming contaminated and
perhaps as
many as 10% of the nation's aquifers are already contaminated or
in danger of
being contaminated. The vast majority of municipal water supplies
rely, at
least in part, on groundwater derived sources. Uncontrolled
releases of jet
fuel and de-icing and anti-icing chemicals are infiltrating
ground water and
streams, killing the natural biota and fish. This pollution has
also been
known to be infiltrating ground water, contaminating aquifers
located under
or nearby many of the nation's airports. Once these underground
resources are
contaminated, they are lost forever.
· As many as 180 million Americans could be affected by
aviation-related
pollution. Recent studies have identified serious health
problems for people
living and working even many miles away from airports, and the
Environmental
Protection Agency predicts that aviation-related pollution will
substantially
increase within the next decade.
· Accordingly, documentation shows that people living near
airports are
exposed to a higher cancer risk and not surprisingly, statistics
indicate
that these individuals are experiencing a higher cancer rate for
a number of
diseases such as brain tumors, esophageal, laryngeal and lung
cancer, much
higher rates of asthma, pregnancy complications, influenza and
pneumonia,
along with a shorter life expectancy, similar to that of a third
world
country.
· Over 10 million American school children's cognitive
development,
motivation and education is being damaged by the constant
bombardment of
unacceptable levels of aviation noise at homes and schools
located around our
nation's airports. These are the same children also being injured
by
uncontrolled and unreported hazardous and toxic air and
water pollution
released from aviation operations. The long-term damage these
children are
experiencing is an untold horror. What is the future of our
country, if we
continue to expand this most polluting industry? And especially,
what is the
gain?
· A report from the General Accounting Office dated February
2000, Aviation
and the Environment, shows that aviation high altitude emissions
have
demonstrated to have great effects on global warming and need
further study.
In addition, referring to climate change caused by jet contrails
radiation
effects Patrick Minnis, a National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
researcher states, “The number of clear days over the U.S.
has decreased in
the last 30 years, and we suspect that much of that is due to an
increase in
cirrus clouds, which we suspect is probably due to an increase in
air
traffic.” Other GAO reports on aviation emissions and
noise are expected to
be released this summer.
There are other alternatives to expanding aviation.
Teleconferencing,
high-speed rail, other modes of mass transportation are but a
few. Aviation
is the most polluting form of transportation in the world and an
inefficient
use of fossil fuel for regional travel.
Sir, we recognize the importance of aviation for long distance
operations,
but, for all these negative reasons and more, the below mentioned
alliance of
organizations petition you to veto this harmful bill for the
American public.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Airport Environmental Coalition, Baltimore, MD
Airport Neighbors Alliance, Albuquerque, NM
Alliance of Municipalities Concerning Air Traffic, Rutherford, NJ
Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Arlington Heights, IL
American Lung Association of Metropolitan Chicago, Chicago, IL
Boulder County Citizens Against Aviation Noise, Boulder, CO
Citizens Against Airport Pollution, San Jose, CA
Citizens Against Noise of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI
Citizens Against Property Devaluation, Port Townsend, WA
Citizens Against Reckless Expansion, Dayton, OH
Citizens Against SEATAC Expansion, Burien, WA
Citizens Against Sikorski Airport Expansion, Stratford, CT
Citizens for Airport Accountability, Reno, NV
Citizens for Airport Safety & Environment, Prospect Heights,
IL
Citizens for Control of Airport Noise, Naples, FL
Citizens for Responsible Airport Development, Portland, OR
Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Washington, DC
City of Fairveiw, TX
City of Olmsted Falls, OH
City of Park Ridge, IL
Communities Against Runway Expansion, Winthrop, MA
Earth Island Institute, San Francisco, CA
East Haven/New Haven Committee for the Protection of Property
Rights, East
Haven, CT
El Cid Historic Neighborhood Association, West Palm Beach, FL
El Toro Airport Info Site, Dana Point, CA
Environmental Health Coalition, San Diego, CA
Guilford Residents Against Sprawl and Pollution, Greensboro, NC
Helicopter Noise Coalition of New York City, New York, NY
Internat’l Resource Center for the Chemically Induced Immune
Disorders,
Franklin Park, IL
Lake County Conservation Alliance, Wadsworth, IL
Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln, MA
Maui Air Traffic Association, HI
MCS: Health and Environment, Evanston, IL
Mesa Community Alliance, Mesa, AZ
Mothers Against Airport Pollution, Arlington Heights, IL
NO to RAPE, Reno, NV
Old Louisville Information Center, Louisville, KY
Olmsted Township, Olmsted Falls, OH
Oregon-Citizens Aviation Watch, Lake Oswego, OR
PDX-Citizens Aviation Watch, Portland, OR
Peninsula Aircraft Noise/Safety Information Committee, Palos
Verdes
Peninsula, CA
Piedmont Quality of Life Coalition, Greensboro, NC
Ramonans for Sensible Growth, Ramona, CA
Rewanda Farms Neighborhood, Reno, NV
Safeguarding the Historic Hanscom Area's Irreplaceable Resources,
Concord, MA
Sane Aviation for Everyone, Howard Beach, NY
Save Our Heritage, Concord, MA
South Metro Airport Action Council, Minneapolis, MN
Taxpayers for Responsible Planning, TRP-AZ
United Community Civic Association, Jackson Heights, NY
US-Citizens Aviation Watch Association, Arlington Heights, IL
Village of Itasca, IL
We The People, Taylorsville, UT
Witham Airport Action Majority, Stuart, FL