New group opposing wider wingspans touching down at Aspen airport eyes November ballot question

A new group advocating against a change at the airport that would allow access to aircraft with slightly larger wingspans has set their sights on a November ballot question for Pitkin County voters.

Citizens Against Bigger Planes (CABP) recently launched with the news that 57% of Pitkin County voters oppose “widen(ing) the runway and increase separation between the runway and taxiway to allow for larger planes.”

The poll also asked participants, 300 Pitkin County voters contacted Feb. 29-March 4 via phone and text to web, about other airport modernization plans like an upgraded terminal and pilot safety resources, which received strong support.

Chuck Butler, 41, is one of the organizers behind CABP. He is a Town of Snowmass resident who first moved to the valley in 2005, left in 2014, then came back in 2019. He said the CABP is about demanding community input on a growth metric in a rapidly changing valley. 

“This airport, in some ways, feels like a last stand of sorts. I know that’s dramatic. But it’s a big part of the quality of life conversation,” said Butler. “This is about Pitkin County voters having a say in the future of their airport.”

The poll questions were authored by CABP and the polling group, according to Butler. 

What’s going on at the airport

Anyone who’s traveled through the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport can tell you — the terminal is in desperate need of a renovation. It’s too small for peak traffic and is outdated. The runway is another problem. Subsurface issues are causing cracks and potholes on the runway pavement and need to be addressed with a costly reconstruction. 

To secure funding from the federal government, the airport is submitting a new Airport Layout Plan (ALP) to the Federal Aviation Administration. ALPs are planning documents for the land- and air-sides of airports. The FAA uses them to inform decisions on discretionary funding, or the hundreds of millions of dollars FAA districts distribute among airports in their jurisdiction for renovation and reconstruction projects.

The ALP currently in the works includes a lot of community goals on safety, environmentalism, and more from the Common Ground Recommendations.

Matt Moseley, president of Ignition Strategy Group which worked with CABP on the polling, said CABP is not opposed to most of the ALP, just one thing: the widening of the taxiway/runway separation.

Currently, the separation between the taxiway and runway at the airport is 320 feet, 80 feet short of the 400-foot standard for other airports in Airport Design Group III, like Aspen’s airport. 

Normally, aircraft with wingspans up to 118 feet may fly in and out of an ADG III airport. But at Aspen, that wingspan limit is 95 feet due to the smaller separation between the taxiway and runway.

The FAA occasionally bends the rules, or issues modifications of standards, to airports that cannot comply with certain regulations. But the FAA has been very clear that in order to continue receiving discretionary funds, which could number in the hundreds of millions in the short-term and even more long-term, the Aspen airport must widen its separation to allow the full breadth of ADG III aircraft at the airport.

That alarmed community members over the prospect of larger aircraft like Gulfstream G650s, with a 99-foot 7-inch wingspan, or Boeing 737 MAX aircraft — only the smallest of MAX aircraft, the MAX 7, could fly into Aspen with a widened separation. The MAX 7 is still not certified to fly in the United States, according to Airport Director Dan Bartholomew.

Bill Tomcich, an aviation consultant who works regularly with Aspen and other mountain airports, said at the March 21 Airport Advisory Board meeting he has not seen many of the wider-wingspan jets at neighboring airports.

But for Butler and other critics of the proposed widening, it’s a question of “if you build it, they will come.”

The Aspen airport traffic is about 83% general aviation, or private aircraft, to 17% commercial. 

Aspen Fly Right, the 501(c)(3) that has published essays and material arguing against widening the separation, has offered analyses that suggest the airport would save money by forgoing FAA for the terminal and runway renovations by relying on revenue from the Fixed Base Operator and bond issuances, among other strategies.

The county and airport have pushed back on that narrative, saying the airport could not pursue the full breadth of multi-million dollar projects needed without federal funds — especially since the FAA has already said they will not continue funding repairs on the rapidly deteriorating runway.

Butler said that his involvement with the airport and starting CABP began with talking to Aspen Fly Right-affiliated folks at a farmer’s market. 

As a 501(c)(3), Aspen Fly Right is strictly limited in its ability to engage in political activity. Butler said CABP is pursuing 501(c)(4) status, meaning they could accept donations as a tax-exempt organization and still engage in politics.

Butler said the airport is a “great amenity” to the county but is flawed.

“It’s such a double-edged sword,” he said. “It’s a luxury and it’s also this thing where no matter who’s (flying) in, if it’s me, family, friends, or guests here … I tell everybody it’s a crapshoot whether or not you’re going to get in or get out.”

The Airport Advisory Board approved recommending an amended ALP to the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners at the March 21 meeting. When the board considers the ALP, there will be another opportunity for public comment.

Getting on the November ballot

Currently, CABP is running a change.org petition calling for Pitkin County to put the taxiway/runway separation widening to a vote and for voters to vote against the expansion.

As of Monday, the online petition has 43 signatures. But to get on a ballot, change.org means nothing. The group will need to capture the signatures of registered Pitkin County voters in person.

“The goal of the (change.org) petition is awareness. It’s to ignite a little bit of a fire under our fellow residents, and even visitors alike,” Butler said. “The petition is step one and, hopefully, what that’ll do is it will get the Board of County Commissioners to see how much passion there is about letting them get this thing to a vote.”

According to Pitkin County Clerk Ingrid Grueter, the group has not yet picked up any initiative petition paperwork from her office but they have plenty of time.

Grueter said the Colorado Secretary of State’s office is still working with counties to establish deadlines for Nov. 5 initiative petitions, but the county Home Rule Charter offers parameters.

The group must collect 1,520 (10% of the Pitkin County electorate in the most recent general election) signatures from registered Pitkin County voters in the 45 days leading up to submission to the clerk’s office.

There are time allowances to cure signatures if a signatory is no longer a registered voter or some other problem arises. Then, the Board of County Commissioners can either adopt the proposed ordinance/resolution or send it to voters. If a general election is more than 120 days away, then the county must hold a special election.

With the general election about seven months away, CABP has plenty of time to organize an initiative petition campaign for the Nov. 5 general election.    

“The point is that we want awareness and engagement and action from the voters of Pitkin County,” Butler said. “If it goes to a vote and voters decide for a bigger runway, then at least democracy has worked and people have spoken. I can accept that. And I think that would be the consensus for the group as I understand it.”

CABP will hold a kick-off event at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, March 27 at the Red Mountain Grill in Aspen.