Aspen airport runway alternation proponents, opponents present to Snowmass Town Council

Opponents and proponents discussed the pros and cons of shifting and widening the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport runway during a Monday Snowmass Town Council work session.

The Pitkin County-proposed Airport Layout Plan would shift the runway 80 feet to the west, increasing the separation from the runway centerline to the taxiway centerline to 400 feet, meeting Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards. It would also widen the runway from 100 feet to 150 feet.

While both groups agreed that the runway must be replaced due to its age and ongoing deterioration, they presented differing opinions on whether or not to move and widen it.

---

---

The group in support of the proposed change, A Whole Lot of People for a Better Airport, told the council moving and widening the runway would make it safer for pilots because they would be further from the taxiway. They said it would bring newer, more environmentally efficient planes to the airport that could reduce noise emitted from the airport. 

But the FAA said in an email to Pitkin County Manager Jon Peacock they would only provide funding to the county for their Airport Layout Plan if Aspen airport abides by their runway standards. The funding would also go toward the creation of a net-zero terminal and new gates.

---

---

“The reason that (the FAA is) so dug in on this is because of safety,” said Michael Miracle, member of a Whole Lot of People for a Better Airport. “This idea that they’re trying to force bigger planes on us is simply not true.”

The opposing groups, Our Airport Our Vote and Aspen Fly Right, told the council an expanded runway would lead to increased air traffic, opening the gate for larger private planes, and planes that worsen pollution. They said it’s not necessary to move or widen the runway to make the runway safer, as it is already safe for the size of planes currently using the airstrip. 

“Claims that the 400-foot runway taxiway separation is an FAA safety requirement, omit the punchline, ‘If we want to bring in bigger planes,'” said Amory Lovins, president of Aspen Fly Right. “But our airport is now safe for the airplanes that can already use it.”

Aspen-based Commercial Pilot Gary Kraft said he’s not sure moving the runway would increase its safety. 

“Widening the runway to 150 feet, from the current 100 feet, would in my opinion have very marginal improvements in overall runway safety,” Kraft told The Aspen Times apart from the meeting.

“Maybe a net negative since we don’t know how local air current will be affected by forcing the approach path to runway 15 closer to Shale Bluffs,” he added, referring to the bluffs that sit adjacent to the Aspen airport and can create turbulent drafts.

But he said he doesn’t want to lose FAA funding because the runway will need replacement.

“It’s deteriorating from below. I’m fine with moving the runway west to lose the wingspan restriction and eliminate FAA operating exemptions,” Kraft said. “But I don’t think we need a 150-foot width. That’s about as wide as runways get.”

Lovins said the county could fund the construction of a new, unmoved and un-widened runway via profit from the 30-year lease they are close to signing with Atlantic Aviation ASE, the fix-based operator that provides fuel and other resources to planes at the airport.

Pitkin County residents will vote on Nov. 5 whether to leave the decision to county elected officials, or to put major decisions regarding the airport in the hands of county residents. 

Voting yes to ballot question 200 would allow citizens to vote on the expansion or movement of the runway. Voting yes on ballot question 1C would reaffirm county officials’ ability to approve and implement changes to the physical layout of the airport on behalf of the community. 

Widening the airport runway would increase the FAA approved plane wingspan at the airport from 96 feet to 118 feet, meaning larger planes could fly in and out of Aspen. Proponents of the altered runway believe this would lead to only minor differences, while opponents said it could create more traffic from private planes and stress local infrastructure.

Miracle said in the near future the change could eventually bring in Delta’s A220-100, which has a wingspan of 115 feet and seats 109 passengers, not a large increase from the British Aerospace 146, which seats 100 passengers and served the Aspen community in the past. The A220-100 is quieter and carries less of a carbon footprint, he added. 

The FAA also told the county that design standard of the Airbus 220-300, which seats 120 to 160 passengers, best represents the type of aircraft that will serve the Aspen airport in the future.

While some new planes with wider wingspans could have environmental benefits, Our Airport Our Vote Member Chuck Butler said widening the runway leaves the door open to larger, private planes that release heavy emissions.

“We will open the door to a couple cleaner planes,” Butler said. “But leave the back door open to every other dirty plane that fits.”

Kraft said widening the runway would create more air traffic.

“More planes would be able to land here and not have to divert to Rifle, Eagle or Grand Junction, by removing the 95-foot wingspan and any gross weight restrictions,” Kraft said.

At the end of the work session, Councilmember Britta Gustafson said the community is lucky to have so many involved citizens.

“What I really look forward to seeing from everyone is the healing process after this ballot issue goes one way or the other,” Gustafson said. “I look forward to seeing how we’re all going to come together around that.”

Skyler Stark-Ragsdale can be reached at 970-429-9152 or email him at sstark-ragsdale@aspentimes.com.