Rubey: Why no voice for constituents on FBO? |

Rubey: Why no voice for constituents on FBO?

Letter to the editor
Letter to the editor

Questions for the Pitkin County commissioners regarding the FBO RFP process:

1. Why are we doing this now and not part of an airport vision in which local constituents can have a voice? Can we not extend the current deal on a two- to three-year basis so it coincides with the $500 million redevelopment of the airport? The FBO lease was extended multiple times. Don’t let the current lease expiration lead to a bad long-term decision.

2. Can we use the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Vision/$500 million remodel process to get multiple FBOs onto the airport? I know this has been a challenge in the past, but it seems that we should avoid giving one of the most powerful financial institutions in the world a publicly sanctioned monopoly. This would be the time to do it.

3. How is local general aviation going to be treated as part of process? Given the current monopoly structure, fuel prices for locals have been astronomical for years. Is this going to continue? Can we ensure that long-time local aviators get treated very well and not pushed out of the picture by out-of-town G700s, Falcons and Global Expresses? Can we not just get our own self-service 100LL / Jet A station?

4. How much capital does the new FBO have to contribute? How much are they going to make annually? Is this an appropriate return? How much is the county going to make and how is this structured? Did the county extract enough value? Is it enough to cover the county’s share of Vision ASE?

5. Who on the county board has the expertise to answer these questions? Who has advised them on a generational decision on one of the county’s most valuable assets? Were they really qualified?

6. Why have the constituents been shut out of this entire process?

Robert Rubey