adn.com | Alaska Politics Blog : Airport vs. trail -- Round one

Alaska Politics Blog

This is the place to talk about Alaska politics -- state, local, national. Public life in the Last Frontier has probably never been more interesting than right now -- the governor as candidate for vice president, the broad and still-evolving corruption investigation, a big election, powerful members of Congress under scrutiny, and the usual hardball Alaska politics. Come here for news, tidbits and information, and join the discussion. Keep your comments civil and on point. Avoid personal attacks. Do not use profanity. Posts that violate the Terms of Use will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned.

Contributors

Erika Bolstad

Erika Bolstad covers Alaska issues, including the congressional delegation, from Washington, D.C., for McClatchy Newspapers. Before joining the bureau in 2007, she spent seven years as a reporter at the Miami Herald, where she covered politics, government and the state legislature. E-mail Erika at ebolstad@adn.com.

Sean Cockerham

Sean Cockerham writes about Alaska state politics. He spent three years based in Juneau for the ADN before joining the Tacoma News-Tribune to write about Washington state politics. He went to Iraq twice for the News Tribune, and previously wrote about Alaska government and politics for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. E-mail Sean at scockerham@adn.com

Kyle Hopkins

Kyle Hopkins covers politics and other stories for the ADN. He covered the 2006 campaign for governor, has blogged extensively about Alaska politics, covered Anchorage city government and was a reporter based in the Mat-Su. He grew up in Southeast Alaska and previously was a reporter at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and Anchorage Press. E-mail Kyle at khopkins@adn.com

Features

2008 Election

At one point the races with Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young promised to be the highest-profile campaigns in Alaska history.

E-MAIL

Palin newsletter

More coverage on Gov. Palin

Photo galleries

Reader-submitted Palin photos

SECTION

Alaska political corruption

The FBI raided state legislatures offices in Aug. 2006, and the fallout since has been epic in Alaska's political world.

PHOTOS

The Photo Blog: From the RNC

Photographer Marc Lester is blogging on Sarah Palin and the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis this week.

Airport vs. trail -- Round one

Posted by Alaska_Politics

Posted: May 21, 2008 - 9:26 pm

From Kyle Hopkins in Anchorage --

ADN reporter Beth Bragg, who put the spotlight on plans for a new north-south runway at the airport in Sunday’s paper, stopped by the Coast International Inn tonight for a public meeting on the expansion. So did about 200 other people, Beth says.

Here’s what she saw:

-- If there was a bombshell, it was an Alaska Airlines rep reading a statement signed by about 20 airlines that do business at the airport. They’re opposing the development, saying it’s not necessary and not affordable.

-- Standing room only. Many in the crowd, including West Anchorage Sen. Hollis French, wore “I (heart) the Coastal Trail” stickers.

-- The people who spoke up mostly dumped on the airport, and had two main themes. One, they felt like the public wasn’t involved enough in the planning process. Two, they questioned the airport’s forecast for how much cargo traffic will grow in coming years.

login or register to post comments

26 May 22, 2008 - 2:45pm | Aries

Fairbanks- the rest of the story

True, Fairbanks and Anchorage are part of the same International Airport System and therefore it benefits the system as a whole to a much greater degree to keep the flights within the system and not increase cost to anyone. Fairbanks is underutilized (grossly in my opinion) with ANC possessing the lion's share of cargo. It is sad that the two airports do not operate as a system but instead ANC seeks to retain all flights for themselves even the ones that require no infastructure, just gas and go. If they were just to utilize Fairbanks (who is proven to be capable of handling such flights) there would be no need to consider this new runway.

25 May 22, 2008 - 12:28pm | eca28

Airlines that oppose new runway have no stake in debate

The debate is over a new runway for the cargo airlines to use. The current runways, as I understand it, will be used by passenger airlines (although this could admittedly change if the airport got its wish.)

May 22, 2008 - 3:18pm | dewey77

Huh!!!

The FAA doesn't ask inbound planes if they're cargo or passenger and then assigns a runway because it UPS or Alaska. "AS91 please arrive on the OLD runway since you didn't support building it". "UPS62 your cleared for landing on the NEW runway. It was built for you. Roger Roger...vector, Victor"

24 May 22, 2008 - 11:39am | rjr

Break Even Point

I wonder how many years (decades) are required to recoup the investment costs of such a large project and will petroleum supplies hold-up long enough to make it possible? More shall be revealed!

23 May 22, 2008 - 10:48am | psychoblogger

Poor reporting clouds common sense facts

This is poor reporting. Of course the airlines say they don't want to PAY for the runway expansion. But of course the airlines WANT and would USE the new runway. Mort Plumb has been gouging landing and ramp fees out of struggling airlines for years. And with fuel costs driving airlines to near bankrupcy they can't handle any more costs from Mort. So airlines are posturing themselves so there is less focus on them paying for the expansion. If the State financed the construction and maintenance of the new runway, the airlines would happily embrace the new facility. This is common sense, but the usual poor and slanted reporting on part of ADN clouds this common sense fact.

22 May 22, 2008 - 10:41am | cat_train2

The best con

is the one you never suspect. Bigger airport, longer runway means more airplanes in and out. Much more to the point, more airplanes might mean more competition. Might mean alaska state airlines and friends risk losing their ability to have sole control over what you pay to fly in and outta state. If you were them, wouldn't it be cool to get a buncha loud, useful, politically connected idiots to take up your cause and fight your battle for you? It's free and you come out lookin like such a civic sweetie! Got to admire a con like that.

May 22, 2008 - 10:52am | polockm203

Last time I checked...

Alaska Airlines didn't have a monopoly over flights in and out of Anchorage. Nice try, but your conspiracy theory efforts would be put to better use by trying to convince us we never landed on the moon.

May 22, 2008 - 11:13am | Truffle

You still have to ask why an a group of airlines

object to a runway addition that increases number of safe landings and take-offs from ANC. They have a political/financial stake in what they did and it has nothing to do with our interests as passengers or users of the airport.

May 22, 2008 - 1:07pm | tuckermaxx

I think they're afraid

of the cargo industry pushing out the passenger industry. I know they can't push it out completely but air cargo is a bigger industry in Alaska now than the passenger industry, at least in Alaska Airlines case. Other carriers like KAL probably aren't too concerned becuase they're international, but because AA is domestic I don't blame them for being concerned about the possibility of increased competition, especially from an industry that they're not a part of.

21 May 22, 2008 - 10:07am | alaskaphotos

Anchorage's Loss

Well good - don't build it - Anchorage's loss will be a gain for the Fairbanks International Airport.as far as the "heavies" coming in for refueling goes that is. So from one Fairbanksan who works at the Fairbanks Airport - THANK YOU!!!!!

May 22, 2008 - 10:20am | dewey77

Fairbank's Gain

Agree..some may have forgotten history as well as geography.

IFirst the history lesson: in the 70's the State combined Anchorage and Fairbanks into a "system". Meaning the rates are the same if one uses Anchorage or Fairbanks. This was done to benefit the STATE not one community over another. And if we recall a little more Fairbanks was booming in the 70's from the pipeline work.

Now for the geography lesson: anything coming or going east of the Mississippi River to Asia, Fairbanks is a shorter route.

So what have we learned? We Alaskans can still keep the jobs with a benefit to both Anchorage and Fairbanks communities as well as beenfit the STATE.

20 May 22, 2008 - 9:49am | snielsus

Think about jobs

If the airport cannot expand to meet future growth, will Canada be able to woo away the existing cargo carriers? How many jobs will be lost? How much revenue and economic growth will be diverted to Canada?

Also, think about the jobs and local economic serge the construction will bring.

The internet revolution changed the cargo industry. More goods are ordered from all over the world, and companies such as FedEx and UPS have expanded beyond their wildest dreams. All signs point to that continuing.

Hopefully the fuel crisis is temporary. Alaska has resources that are blocked by the "environment" liberals in Washington. We should start to become self-sufficient and begin a divorce from Middle East oil and politics.

19 May 22, 2008 - 9:21am | ljcook

The plans

The one big reason not to expand is because of the plans they have. To dump land into the water to make more land? They really need to think about erosion due to the natural way of the earth. How will that helo in the years to come? Before they can complete the project they will have to restart using more taxpayers money and not getting anywhere. I say find a better plan that includes the land that they are already using then the costal trail won't be touched.

18 May 22, 2008 - 9:18am | Truffle

ADN and the Media GET IT WRONG AGAIN

Both our print and televised media pitted the trail against the airport. Every design showed that the trail would be rerouted and would not disappear. For all of the people who turned up for protesting the airport expansion, how many ordered packages that had to be flown in? How many purchased fresh fruits and vegetables from places like Chile? How many are unaware how their job is impacted by the revenues generated by the airport? I would guess the vast majority of those at the meeting could tell you how the cargo side of the airport benefitted them.

It is interesting that the AK Air representative opposed the airport development. They were the very ones trumpeting the need for expanding the passenger terminal. They are the ones who pushed through the new addition to the terminal with a chunk of pork from Uncle Ted. They are the ones who forced FedEx, UPS and other cargo only users of the airport to pay additional fees to support the passenger extension. Now AK air is opposing an airport improvement that will benefit the cargo users which accounts for the vast majority of the use of the Anchorage airport. What they are saying is that now that they have their piece of the pie, they are opposed to the cargo flights that generate the majority of the airport revenue to get their improvement. They have organized other passenger airlines to oppose the improvement. This is not a surprise but the media are trumpeting their opposition as a "bombshell".

As for fuel prices halting air travel, that will not happen. It would have happened in the 70's when OPEC jacked the price of oil from $6 a barrel to $30 a barrel. For a similar percentage increase we would have to see oil go far higher than currently predicted. As for the mega-airport in Canada, you need to remember that to get there, you have to leave the jet stream assist. Whatever savings there are at the Canadian airport would be balanced out with higher fuel costs to get there. Also, the projections for ANC have taken that into consideration.

Lastly, steadily improving the airport puts us ahead of the usage curve. This is something that airports in the lower 48 would kill for and Uncle Ted has finagled the money into the budget already.

May 22, 2008 - 11:26am | g38r93b

Wrong concerning AK Air

The airlines didn't support the terminal expansion project. The airline operating agreements with the airport stipulate that the airlines vote on improvements since they are the one's that pay through higher landing fees, fuel flowage fees, terminal lease rents, etc. It doesn't take a majority of the airlines to approve a project. Even if all airlines oppose a project the airport can still do it if they put it up to a vote for 2 or 3 years. That could happen with this project unless the legislature refuses to give the airport the authority to receive and expend the federal money that is pay for most of the runway. Originally, Delta and other airlines were to use the new C-Concourse. However, it ended up that Alaska was the only tenant. During construction Delta was moved to the N. Terminal and they liked it so much that they never moved back. Do people realize the project was $100 million over budget? Yes, the airlines pay but the costs are passed along to us.

May 22, 2008 - 12:35pm | Truffle

I didn't say that AK Air was wanted it just because they ended

up as sole users, I said they were at the forefront of pushing for terminal expansion. The costs are passed along to those who use air travel and shipping, which is most of us. A little here and there when I use air freighted items and travel beats the yearly ding to my property tax.

May 22, 2008 - 11:54am | teleskier

a quick response

I certainly agree with your headline, though unfortunately the same could be said about your representation.

I'm guessing you did not attend the meeting last night, because if you had you would know that although an AK Air representative read the statement, it was signed by a variety of regional and international air carriers, including Fedex, UPS, NAC. You're completely misrepresenting their concerns as a passenger vs. cargo issue. Nearly everyone in the room including the project management was expecting the coalition to be publicly in favor of development. One of the project leads expressed "shock" (his words, not mine) at the airlines' concerns, even though they have been raised privately, and apparently ignored, in planning meetings to date.

As a statistician, my biggest problem with this project proposal is the usage curve you refer to in your closing statement. Unfortunately, I did not have a chance to review the 130 page forecast document before the meeting (I wasn't aware of this project/meeting before monday), but a quick review late last night seems to initially confirm a misrepresentation of the evidence of need for these design proposals. This forecast serves as the basis both for demonstrating need and evaluating alternative designs. There are several troubling statistical aspects as well as glaringly false base assumptions contained within this document. Indeed, part of the airline coalition's statement highlighted concern about the conclusion of necessity for these alternative designs. My concern is this usage forecast as written comes nowhere close to demonstrating a tangible or justifiable need for this project.

In this case, with potentially dramatic impacts on a variety of shared community resources, the onus is on the project team to support the validity of their conclusions regarding the challenges facing the airport. From just a brief read of the report, I can tell they have not done this to date.

May 22, 2008 - 10:03am | dewey77

Weren't FedEx, UPS, and

Weren't FedEx, UPS, and Northern Air at that meeting supporting Alaska Air??? Yes!

May 22, 2008 - 11:17am | Truffle

Make no mistake, FedEx, UPS and the other Cargo Carriers

want the additional runway. They are on record for that statement. They just want you and me to pony up the money directly either through taxes or political collateral via Uncle Ted, rather than let their customers pay for it via the increased cost of airport use through shipping fees. Which is fairer, having everyone pay through taxes or have the users pay?

May 22, 2008 - 9:29am | I_am_Spartacus

Nobody has it wrong

Simply because the airport plans will re-route the coastal trail doesn't minimize the impact. It is till an aiport vs. trail (and Point Waronzof) issue.

What you seem to have conveniently ignored is the completely bogus growth projections made by the airport to justify the need for another runway. It's one thing to get ahead of the curve. It's another to invent the curve in your mind and try to spend millions of tax dollars to get ahead of it.

Just for the record, do you work for the airport, the state, a cargo carrier, or one of our Congressional felons?

May 22, 2008 - 10:38am | Truffle

Don't work for any of the above.

Growth projections and airport mods are jurisdiction of the Feds.

As for the trail, if you looked at the elevation diagrams at the meeting you would have seen that the trail gets more noise protection from foliage and a clearer view of the ocean than it currently does. That is an improvement to me.

As for who I work for, I work for none of the above. But, I do get tired of the incessant whine of people who automatically assume that they are losing something without weighing the possible benefits of the outcomes. Can I get some foliage planted to reduce their noise?

17 May 22, 2008 - 9:15am | cat_train2

Surprise surprise surprise

Maybe the issue is more about airlines not wanting to pay higher airport fees that would result from improved infrastructure. In this day and age it's much easier to cancel flights than land at Anchorage when the winds favor an eas-west runway. Screw the passengers who are thus inconvenienced again, they can't do anything about it, who cares what passengers think?

16 May 22, 2008 - 8:56am | rfn

The airlines have a point.

The existing runways are perfectly adequate for the declining number of passengers they'll be handling as they price themselves out of reach and reduce the number of flights.

The cargo lines seem to be providing more of the traffic but they'll be leaving in another year or so when that big new airport opens in Canada. The one that's connected by rail to all of Canada and the lower-48 and is already offering low cost land for building huge handling facilities.

Plus, Canada will be offering jet fuel made from tar sands cooked with Alaskan natural gas as Alaska runs out of petroleum.

Definitely no need to expand the airport and they really should be looking at whether it's practical to continue with the renovation of the existing terminal. Unless, of course, they want to have a second banquet hall on the site.

May 22, 2008 - 1:10pm | tuckermaxx

tariffs?

Aren't the airlines charged tariffs for the cargo they ship to foreign countries?

15 May 22, 2008 - 8:45am | marielowry

uuhhmmm

well they were right about one thing, the public is not getting involved cause some of them may not know, this is the first thing i have heard on this subject....

14 May 22, 2008 - 8:32am | urban_eskimo

Why wait?

So what I gather from these comments is that we should wait until there is a serious bottleneck in runway capacity and then take a couple years to respond rather than be proactive and have the capacity in place before there is a serious crunch. So the rest of the world should be inconvenienced for the ten people who ride their bikes on the trail? The dollars are already set aside for this, it makes sense to stimulate the economy with this project rather than complain about a recession, maybe I'm seeing things wrong.

13 May 22, 2008 - 8:21am | g38r93b

Bet you didn't know this!

Mort got Ted Stevens to put the federal money for this runway in the federal budget. The money for it is already there but it can't be spent until the Alaska Legislature approves the authority to receive and expend the money. Mort and Ted seemed to be joined at the hip. That's how we got the airport railroad terminal that no one uses. The legislature should look into this end run.

May 22, 2008 - 8:34am | aroundthewaydj

People...

People use the Sheffield Train Depot all the time. It's available for rent and it's booked solid almost through the end of the year... Company parties and weddings some Fridays, most Saturdays are gone.

May 22, 2008 - 8:51am | paperman

highest and best use???

So now the highest and best use for Federal/State transportation dollars is to build a catering hall at the airport for high dollar weddings and conventions....silly me...I thought transportation dollars should be going to fix our dilapadated road system.

May 22, 2008 - 10:20am | aroundthewaydj

get it...

The point is that people ARE using the depot.

May 22, 2008 - 10:31am | paperman

FOR WHAT???

No.
The point is that they are NOT using the train depot for a train depot, but as a SOCIAL CLUB. This is not what government is here to do!
I am NOT ALLOWED to take a train to the airport since the ONLY TRAINS that use this station are chartered by cruise companies.

By your logic, we could build the multi-billion dollar bridge to nowhere and build a golf club at the Point McKenzie terminus, not put in any sort of connection to a highway in the valley-so there would be no reason to drive over the bridge other than to play golf. Would this be a good use of taxpayer dollars - keeping in mind that ALL earmarks are funded through deficit spending that will be paid off by our children and grandchildren.

May 22, 2008 - 10:54am | aroundthewaydj

now you're being...

mellow dramatic. Let me be clear. I think a train depot at the airport was unnecessary and counter-productive for businesses in Anchorage. The train doesn't run year-round, so the Alaska Railroad is making the best of it and renting the facility. My point still - it is being used.

May 22, 2008 - 11:09am | paperman

I hear you...

I hear you and probably agree with your reasoning...

However, the train doesn't actually run at all for the public. I don't know how much the cost of the building was or what their rental rates are - but I would go out on a limb and say that if the use was amortized to cover the cost of the building it would cost tens of thousands of dollars to have a wedding reception here.

I see the project as a build and they will come idea - although the railroad is actively preventing people from coming by not offering service. Similar to the wasted millions on the fish plant now church on Raspberry. Essentially the state subsidized a multi-million dollar church by allowing the seafood industry to talk AIDEA into building an enormous facility that never had good 'numbers' behind it to justify its construction.

Until the day comes when I can park downtown or somewhere free and ride the train to the airport I will say that the millions of dollars to build the Sheffield boondoggle train stop at the airport was a waste of money that could have been much better used to fund transportation projects that Alaskans actually use...

by the way it is melodramatic....:)

May 22, 2008 - 12:10pm | rfn

We all can

inexpensively ride the bus to the airport.

Just so long as we're willing to wear some old clothes that can just be thrown away when you get where you're going. Unless you plan to stand and wear latex gloves to hold onto something.

May 22, 2008 - 1:37pm | paperman

Good point ... but

What about those of us who can't afford to fly out during the peak flying hours when the bus is running. It seems Alaskans (as opposed to visitors) fly out on red-eyes that leave hours after the last bus stops at the airport :(

May 22, 2008 - 3:17pm | rfn

I think it rather innocent

to believe that any potential rail service might have a more user-friendly schedule than the buses. In fact, I'd look for a lower frequency, shorter hours, and possibly bringing about the end of bus service entirely. I'd guess rail service might run Monday through Friday, 8am-8pm at best. Certainly not on holidays.

May 22, 2008 - 9:01am | urban_eskimo

but everybody is saying

but everybody is saying earmark dollars are pork and unnecessary! What do you all want? Seems to me that Ted, and Don are under fire for the wheeling and dealing necessary to bring dollars for infrastructure development. now you people are complaining about getting those dollars. I guess you all just want to hear yourself complain while you reap the benefits of our delegations successes for this state.

May 22, 2008 - 10:27am | paperman

refined argument

I have nothing against earmarks per se....there are many things in Alaska that would not be without them. However, nobody can argue that we haven't gotten greedy in our adolesence (as a state when compared with states that are 100/200+ years old.) The earmark process should be for key projects to build true infrastructure to benefit the residents - show me how the Train Depot benefits the state as a whole...Or recreation improvements to specific towns that could be paid for by the local residents instead of future generations since the earmarks are funded by deficit spending. Now if those funds were earmarked to improve train service to get vehicles off the road or create long-term jobs it would be a different story

May 22, 2008 - 10:42am | Truffle

How many of those states benefitted from a rail network?

We do not have the rail network that other states have. The land given to the railroads was not purchased but land granted from the federal government. What is that worth? If you look at a percentage of the federal budget at that time, it was significant. While I agree that we shouldn't go earmark crazy and build infrastructure that is unwise, it would be shortsighted to turn down an earmark that improves the one piece that we extensively use.

12 May 22, 2008 - 8:16am | mpofak

Mort Plumb

Was a butthead as a colonel in the Air Force and cause he couldn't leave a "legacy" in the Air Force, he is trying to do it now at the airport!!!

11 May 22, 2008 - 6:36am | truckinangel35

Air travel & travel in general

Well, if fuel prices don't stop rising soon, alot of travel will be halted. Many people won't be able to afford. They say within 2 years, gasoline will be $7.00 gallon, wonder what aircraft fuel will cost? So expanding the Airport in these tough economic times is impractical. ( So was the PAC and a New Egan Center, but what are the general public taxpayers to say?)

10 May 22, 2008 - 6:24am | lamblj

SMELLS LIKE PORK...

ROTTEN PORK... I SAY MOVE THE AIRPORT TO FIRE ISLAND AND LET ANCHORAGE HAVE THE AREA IT TAKES UP NOW FOR FUTURE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

May 22, 2008 - 8:45am | hugh

Better yet...

Trade McKenzie for Elmendorf and Richardson

May 22, 2008 - 6:31am | truckinangel35

very good answer

That is a good answer, however, how will passengers and airport employees get there? Maybe a shuttle ferry?

May 22, 2008 - 6:52am | danjen2

The bridge to nowhere!

We can finally justify a stupid bridge to nw where!

May 22, 2008 - 10:27am | leaknome

Bridges to NoWhere

Do you know that there are already over two hundred bridges to NoWhere in the Lower 48, most of them crossing the stupid Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, spanning the East and West Coasts and financed by Who. Just finished driving the 110-mile bridge to a NoWhere place, Key West. Places like New York, Washington DC, Boston, Seattle, SanFrancisco, St. Louis, Detroit, New Orleans, Chicago, San Diego, St. Ignace; virtually every state in the US&A has a few.

9 May 22, 2008 - 6:22am | brvak

Questions from a middle aged man.

Do they plan to land and take off two at a time? Do planes take about 2 minutes to land and get off a runway so the next plane can land or take off? How many hours in a day do the jets get "bottled" up awaiting a window to land or take off? If the answers are no/yes/a couple then I think better planning would handle it much easier than a twin runway.

May 22, 2008 - 8:53am | brandyeber

GREAT IDEA!

That would be a wonderful idea...if the present air traffic controllers wern't already understaffed and over worked. You can go to the Natca website for more info on that!

8 May 22, 2008 - 5:57am | nsfhi

Let's Expand the Nome Airport

Anchorage has enough, expand Nome's airport. It will provide 120 base industry jobs. It will have the airpot in Nome ready for when the Ice Melts and we become the first port of the North on the NOrth American Cont. And get the railroad out here.

7 May 22, 2008 - 4:32am | flembri

Proof

of why I make an effort to fly Alaska. They at least try to think about things. (Although if they follow American Airlines and start charging for every checkin bag I'll be pretty PO'd)

Search Jobs | Place an employment ad

Alaska Politics Blog

Contributors

Features

Archive

Airport vs. trail -- Round one