Frequently Asked Questions #2

This post is second in an occasional series of frequently asked questions about the airport relocation project. You can read FAQs #1 here.

What other alternatives were considered besides relocating the airport?

Before the FAA recommended and approved the relocation of our airport, they spent about five years considering two dozen alternatives for addressing the deficiencies at our current airport. Remember – our airport does not meet federal safety and design standards (among other issues).

During that time the FAA considered extending the runway system into the bay. They considered extending it into Forest Park. They considered co-location with Tyndall AFB. They considered using a material called EMAS (think of high-tech fly-paper) to increase the effectiveness of our substandard runway safety areas. They considered every feasible alternative.

After five years of analysis, input from dozens of federal agencies, dozens of public meetings and input from hundreds of aviation and environmental experts, the FAA concluded that relocation was the best alternative for our community.

What do relocation opponents want to see done?

Based on my observation, relocation opponents are advocating four different alternatives.

Some opponents want to do nothing. The FAA has said that doing nothing is “not reasonable, feasible practicable or prudent.” I think when the FAA says that, we need to listen.

Other opponents want to extend the runway into the bay. That idea was considered and rightly rejected in the 1980s. Local environmentalists and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection have made it clear this idea is a non-starter. They’re right.

Still other opponents want to extend the runway system into Forest Park. The FAA considered this and rejected the idea for many reasons, not the least of which is the need to forcibly take up to 200 homes in the neighborhood. No one has really focused on this threat, but this is the solution the New York-based NRDC supports.

Finally, one vocal relocation opponent has actually advocated a two-airport solution for our region. This person argues that we should keep the existing airport open as a general aviation airport and then build a new airport up by I-10, out of Bay County.

I think this proposed solution is flawed for a number of reasons.

First, there’s the expense of maintaining two airports. Second, I think moving the airport that far from the beaches and regional population centers doesn’t make much sense. And third, I’d hate to see Bay County lose such an important economic driver.

Fortunately, the FAA has made its decision – a decision I think is best for the community and the region.

Is there enough demand to warrant building a new airport?

In a word, yes. The FAA has studied this very issue and concluded that the demand is there.

A few things to remember. Panama City has the highest airfares in the State of Florida (Okaloosa is second, making the Panhandle a very expensive place to fly). The reasons for this are complex, but the constraints at our existing airport are a big factor. For example, American Airlines has said they won’t serve our existing airport because of the constraints.

The new airport is being designed to efficiently support low cost service. The Airport Authority working hard to bring new, more competitively priced service to the relocated airport. More competition will mean lower prices. Lower prices will stimulate demand and more air travel. People will travel here more often from further distances if it is more affordable.

But the FAA has concluded that even without low cost service, there is enough demand to support airport relocation.

This airport is being built to serve our region for the next fifty years and beyond. It’s our ability to think that far ahead – and to chart our future – that distinguishes this effort.