"Southwest pullout rings warning for SFO"

Friday, January 26, 2001

Opinion
Southwest pullout rings warning for SFO
San Francisco (CA) Business Times


Southwest Airlines' impending take-off from San Francisco should rattle
politicians and business leaders across the Bay Area.

SFO urgently needs to expand its runway capacity, but its plans to do so are
so far proceeding on the usual leisurely timeline for major projects in the
Bay Area. In other words, we seem prepared to argue about it for a decade or
two before getting down to business.

We can't afford that. Southwest's decision to abruptly pull out of SFO
should send a loud and clear message: Nobody is prepared to wait that long.

It's true that in one sense Southwest isn't exactly going to make a
thundering departure. It only operated 14 flights out of SFO daily, anyway;
many will simply move around the Bay to Oakland, where Southwest already has
a much bigger presence, or to San Jose. Other airlines will no doubt eagerly
snap up the capacity at SFO that its move will open up.

But the reasons Southwest cited should give pause to anyone who thinks we
have the luxury of protracted bickering over expanding SFO without risking
significant economic damage. Basically, the airline doesn't see SFO doing
enough to deal with its problems (it is perennially among the worst U.S.
airports for delays), and is sick of seeing late flights to and from SFO
ripple into chaos for the rest of its timetable.

This isn't entirely SFO's fault. It's constrained by Bay Area weather and a
runway configuration that dates from the 1930s. The first problem it can't
do much about. As for the second, the Peninsula has grown up around SFO,
effectively landlocking it. So the remaining option is to go out into the
Bay, which SFO proposed more than two years ago.

As environmentally unpalatable as this might be, nobody has since come up
with a better option.

The hard fact is that air traffic into the Bay Area is expected to double
over the next few decades, and the long-haul and international capabilities
of SFO remain a key asset for companies increasingly involved in the global
economy.

It's no accident that some of the region's most internationally focused
companies are located on the Peninsula, within easy reach of SFO.

Shifting more flights to Oakland or San Jose isn't really an option. These
airports too are near capacity. Besides, the three airports are too far away
from each other to be seen as truly complementary, particularly as the Bay
Area's fragmented transit network makes it difficult to trek from one to
another.

That's not to downplay the real environmental issues involved, but the
airport's offer to restore up to 50 square miles of wetlands elsewhere in
exchange is a serious one that deserves serious consideration.

But we need to come up with a firm answer soon. Otherwise, more than
airlines may decide to take off from the Bay Area.

 What do you think of this story? Post your opinion in the CAA Discussion Forum
http://www.californiaaviation.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?conf=DCConfID8

*****************************************