The head of a recently announced members-only California airline says he has all but ruled out making Santa Monica Airport the carrier's Los Angeles-area terminal, due in large part to significant anti-airport sentiment.
"It's a great airport," said Surf Air CEO Wade Eyerly. "It's got a lot of pluses, a lot of people who live nearby who fly quite a bit.
But we've already been subject to a lobbying campaign to keep us from flying here," he said, "and if the community doesn't want us here, we'll fly out of a different airport."
Equally important, Airport Director Bob Trimborn said currently can't provide accommodations, including ramp space and parking, for Surf Air's type of operation.
Surf Air plans to start flying this summer, with two eight-passenger, single-engine turboprop planes, between Palo Alto, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and Monterey. The company offers three tiers of month-to-month membership, one for under $800 a month. Unlike air charters, Surf Air flights will be on regular schedules. Passenger-members will book seats on specific flights, traveling as many times as they wish each month.
"We would bring thirty to a hundred jobs to Santa Monica,'' Eyerly said. "But some really active folks would rather not have us here, so we're looking at a couple of other airports."
Eyerly said Surf Air's Swiss-made PC-12 turboprops are quieter than Santa Monica's jets. With eight or nine takeoffs a day, "the idea that we would create such a nuisance that we couldn't have these jobs here is kind of sad," he said.
He's not overly concerned with Santa Monica Airport's possible closure or modification in 2015 when the city's 1984 operating agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration expires. If Surf Air establishes itself by then, it could change airports in 2015, Eyerly said. (The FAA disputes the agreement's expiration date).
But Eyerly acknowledged that if Surf Air were successful, "the case becomes much more compelling to keep [Santa Monica Airport] there.''
"If you just look at pure statistics and metrics, [Santa Monica Airport] seems great,'' he said. "But...there's a pitched battle going on. We can pick a side and go to war or we can just go somewhere else."
Surf Air doesn't have FAA certification yet, meaning Eyerly can't publicly announce his airport choice or what schedules will be set. But he's confident he'll be able to start operations this summer.
When weighing Santa Monica Airport against other area airports, such as Hawthorne and Burbank, Eyerly talked with aviation businesses here, along with members of the community and Santa Monica Airport director Trimborn.
Trimborn says he was frank about the sometimes heated community discussions and the local airport's current "visioning process."
Regarding Surf Air, Trimborn said, "It's a concept. I'm not taking their proposal seriously until it's a proposal, and it's not a proposal yet."
And if Surf Air gets FAA certified, would Eyerly still want to use SMO?
"I would say if we're welcome here, we'll be here," Eyerly said. "SMO makes a lot of sense to us, but as long as there are folks who don't want us here...we'll go elsewhere, and other folks will be thrilled to have the jobs and to have the flights (be) close and convenient to them."
Brian R. Bland
The problem here is one of city ineptitude and greed, and the intolerance of the community. What frustrates me is the head in the sand attitude of the community and the blindness to what this airport area will look like if it is closed and redeveloped. An airport is a great alternative to the alternative congestion, traffic and air pollution of a dense mixed use development. Look at Playa Del Rey on the old Hughes Airport and double to density as an example - does the community really want this?
One thing is for sure - the cancer causing agents produced by vehicles in a mixed use development that would replace the airport will be greater than those produced at the airport by aircraft.
One look at the budget published by Santa Monica shows how very few planes are actually fined for noise and for breaking the curfew. If you call the airport, they will tell you how little ability they actually have to enforce the "fly neighborly program." Further there are only two noise monitors which is ineffective to measure the impacts around the rest of the neighborhood. I have been woken up by a plane on a missed approach but guess what? That's not considered a landing so it's not measured. Lots of loopholes.
It worked out nicely for him; might work for Mr. Eyerly too. No, this resident feels that an actual airline at SMO would be unpleasant in every way. But I also think the kleptocracy of Santa Monica will grease the machinery that yields them the greatest amount of money. And that could be an open invitation to have The Grove (another Caruso spectacle) #2 right here on Centinela Blvd.
As for those who talk about leaded aviation fuel - only small planes use low lead fuel, and it's being phased out anyway. The disinformation that the community relies on is simply leading us in the wrong direction. What you are led to want is, if you study the facts, worse than the present situation. My daughter and her family live in Mar Vista - I don't want them sick, but I believe that the present situation is better than the alternative.
If you don't want to be next to an airport - DONT LIVE NEXT TO AN AIRPORT. Silly sad trolls.
I wonder how many folks in the SMO area who are unhappy about the airport smoke cigarettes? According to this definition, benzopyrene is contained in cigarette smoke. Anyone breathing second hand smoke is exposed. Let's get real - folks inland from LAX cope with four runways, (40 to 60 flights per hour on average x 4 runways = 160 to 200 flights an hour) and SMO has perhaps 3 jets per hour. The folks inland from LAX seem to be ok, yet they get more than 100 times more emission over their area than any home at SMO (derived by size of aircraft and volume of fuel burn times frequency). The argument against emission contaniment doesn't hold up, it seems.
This grade is the low lead version of Avgas 100. Low lead is a relative term. There is still up to 0.56 g/litre of lead in Avgas 100LL. This grade is listed in the same specifications as Avgas 100, namely ASTM D 910 and UK DEF STAN 91-90. Avgas 100LL is dyed blue. To read more about the fuel, download its MSDS now. Avgas 82 UL This is a relatively new grade aimed at the low compression ratio engines which don't need the high octane of Avgas 100 and could be designed to run on unleaded fuel. Avgas 82UL is dyed purple and specified in ASTM D 6227. Natalie - low lead has up to 0.56 g/litre) = up to 2 grams of lead in a gallon. 28 grams = one ounce. A single engine light aircraft burns less than ten gallons an hour and if it is on the taxiway and then takeoff it will burn perhaps two gallons = 4 grams of lead which is then dispersed over a very wide area. This is such a tiny amount that it is virtually irrelevant. Times 30 operations an hour = 120 grams amount.. Why not press for unleaded fuel to be made available at SMO? Then much of the argument goes away since most light aircraft can use 92 octane unleaded fuel? Folks on this thread are unhappy - so how about pressing for something achievable, like having unleaded fuel available at SMO?
While Surf Air might have chosen a politically correct argument to quote when abandoning it's SMO application, they would never have gained an airline approval for that airport. Air Taxi operation (Part 135) - yes. But then it isn't an airline, but a charter service.
I would be happy if the planes at SMO would switch to unleaded gas. Your post doesn't take into account the repetitive traffic from the flight schools who practice touch and gos all day long. Why don't you ask Joe Justice or Justice Aviation if he would retrofit all of his planes that circle around and around and around all day long seven days a week dropping lead on the surrounding neighborhoods including and especially Mar Vista. See how likely he is to do that without some sort of federal regulations requiring him to do so. In fact, he stood up in an OPA meeting and said that all of the older people in the room were exposed to lead and they were okay so we shouldn't worry about our kids. Really, so we should still have lead in our paint in our homes and in our car gas tanks? I am for any steps that reduce the toxic emissions at SMO on every level. Lead is one problem. Noise is another problem. And the biggest problem is the jet fuel emissions. Since the FAA has ruled that you can't have prop planes without jets, the airport has to go.
I went to the website jetpollution.com and it reads like a NIMBY group with a lot of loosely assembled hysterical propaganda - I'd like to believe it but it just doesn't read well. What I do know is that the amount of lead in avgas is minute (as quoted in my earlier post from Shell Oil) and much of the lead is burned and some retained in the engine oil. What little is disbursed is so widely distributed that I don't believe it can pose a threat to anyone unless they stood next to the exhaust pipe. I do see your name prominent on anti-airport postings so you seem to be a one person band, leading the charge. I admire the dedication. Let's be positive and suggest you ask the airport management to arrange for unleaded fuel to be added at SMO. That means all those pesky little flight school planes will burn unleaded fuel.
PB, I am not leading a one person band. There are over 1,000 members of CRAAP and 1,000 people participated in surveys by CASMAT and over half of those people want the airport shut and over 70% want operations drastically reduced. Marty has been doing this work for a long time and the whole point is NOT IN MY BACKYARD or anyone's backyard for that matter. There have to be minimum distances established between homes and families and aircraft operations, especially jet aircraft. As I have continually said, the lead in the small craft is an issue but not on par with the toxic jet exhaust. If you prefer go to this article and read about the toxins herein http://sd28.senate.ca.gov/news/2011-12-01-santamonicapatchcom-state-senate-panel-reviews-air-toxins-smo. Or read this article http://www.smdp.com/Articles-local-news-c-2011-12-02-73048.113116-Hearing-takes-aim-at-SMO-pollution.html. The second one also addresses the elevated lead levels around SMO. The FAA has ruled that SMO cannot exclude jets. If you want to lobby for unleaded fuel, I will support your efforts. But I want it closed.My question is why do you want it to stay?
The impact seems localized, so the cure is a localized cure - have the city get a grant and buy and remove the affected homes at the end of the runway. The government greed for taxes led them to approve the houses - if occupation is intolerable then remove the houses. Let me be clear - I do not fly into SMO. I have a pretty open mind. However after having read the reports linked to your website I conclude that the emission problem is not serious.... "CO was dominated by vehicles going in and out of the airport". There are spikes associated with jets but the jet frequency is minimal. Further, Stage 3 jets are now banned. Schwarzenegger can't fly his G3 out of SMO any more.
As I earlier stated - emissions from an airport are lower due to the size of the airport than an average community. Replace the airport with 60 units to the acre and the emissions at the surrounding homes will rise tremendously so while the airport may not be your friend, it is better than the alternative of mixed use development.
What a pompous ass you are to say that we should all just vacate our homes. The toxic waste from SMO affects Santa Monica, LA and Venice not just the homes at the east end of the runway. Weighing the value of all the surrounding homes and schools and the health of the inhabitants against the convenience of the very few who fly at SMO leaves no doubt as to who should stay and who should go.
"The studies document black carbon and ultrafine particles emitted from the planes at SMO, which can cause damage to the lungs and increase asthma and other immunological responses in the elderly and children." Dr. John Froines, the UCLA Director of S.Calif. Environmental Health Sciences Center. Not only do jet aircraft create what scientists suspect to be dangerous particles, they blast them further into the surrounding environment than other machines that produce similar pollution. Dr. Suzanne Paulson, vice chair of the Dept. of Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences at UCLA. Emissions were found 700 meters downwind from the airport versus the average freeway emission at 300 meters. Dr. Kim-Chi T. Hoang of the EPA showed elevated lead levels at SMO - 5 to 10 times higher than other areas of LA. Lead is known to stunt cognitive growth in children.
INTELLIGENT dialogue would be welcome. I have read all the comments and yours seem bent on pushing buttons. That is one reason why I refrain from responding to utter nonsense. Natalie's comments are based on fact. Your comments are ludicrous. Your comments are nasty and mean spirited. What Natalie referred to you as is no worse than your use of the acronym NIMBY. I agree with her comments. She is not alone. Most neighbors of SMO want the toxic polluter closed. Actually you seem to be alone in espousing the pro-aviation views (no offense to the good pilots out there). I look forward to reading more of it as it exposes your true nature. Natalie is concerned about the health of her family. What the hell are you so bent out of shape about?
The anti-airport argument is simply not supported by fact. Your group has used every arrow in its quiver, yet when I actually read the studies and pollution counts contained therein I found that the pollution levels between the airport and the public road to the east were lower than on the east side of the same road - in other words, the pollution was actually produced from vehicles rather than from aircraft. I made the point that I actually read the EIR for the proposed ElToro International Airport, and I learned that all airports produce less pollution than the comparably sized residential usage. I made the point that EIRs use ten vehicular trips per day per residence and that density at SMO as a residential development would be sixty units per acre. This equates to 600 vehicle trips per acre per day, and that your group might consider that the emissions from such density makes an airport attractive by comparison. I am spurred to correct misinformation the type of which is being promulgated by the anti-airport segment.