"U.S. Airport Execs Question Federal Spending Plan"

Wednesday, March 26, @003

Airport execs question federal spending plan
Some fear more money will go to safety, less to improvements
By Carol Roberts
The San Luis Obispo (CA) Tribune


SAN LUIS OBISPO - Airport executives here and around the country worry that
federal money earmarked for improvement projects could be redirected toward
financing more security people.

Under the current "code orange" terrorism alert, the second highest on the
Department of Homeland Security's scale, airports have been ordered to
increase police presence inside terminals, around runways and on roadways,
and to conduct random inspections of vehicles driving to terminals.

San Luis Obispo Airport has 24 federal Transportation Security
Administration agents working two shifts. It also has contracted with the
county Sheriff's Department to have a deputy at the facility since May 2002.

At smaller airports such as San Luis Obispo, more security probably isn't
needed, said Klaasje Nairne, the manager there. She hopes to renegotiate
with the TSA on a possible decrease.

The new initiatives have resulted in high costs for airports, mostly from
overtime payments to police often shared with the state or city the airport
is in.

Security is of prime importance, Nairne said, but the TSA should get its
federal money through the Department of Homeland Security, not from the
Federal Aviation Administration, which provides money for physical
improvements such as extending the runway at the San Luis Obispo facility.

The 700-foot extension to accommodate so-called regional jets has been
endorsed by the county Council of Governments. Nairne said Congressional
representatives Bill Thomas and Lois Capps also have promised support.
Currently money for the extension is expected to come from the FAA and
ticket taxes.

Nairne, contacted by phone in Washington, D.C., has been among 300 airport
executives attending an annual spring conference to set a legislative
platform for the coming year. A main concern, she said, is that millions of
dollars in improvements at large and small airports -- either planned or
under way -- could be stalled by diversion for security additions.

"The general consensus here is that security is costing more and more,"
Nairne said, "and that the TSA needs to re-evaluate some of its programs and
be required to go after funding the same way we do -- through legislation
and the appropriations process."

Nairne was quoted in the Washington Post lamenting the high cost of security
for smaller airports and citing a potential $98,000 deficit at San Luis
Obispo's airport because of that heightened security.

"That is a big concern," Nairne said, "but I was taken out of context."

The TSA contract is insufficient to cover the amount charged by the
Sheriff's Department for security services.

"So when we get to the end of the contract we conceivably could be in the
hole about $98,000," Nairne said, "and have to cover it out of our operating
budget, which means we may have to increase rates and fees."

Long-term parking fees recently were raised at the airport by a dollar to $6
a day, Nairne said. The fees the airlines pay to operate locally also could
be increased.

She's doubtful the $98,000 would be raised in one year, but over time
predicts that amount could be recouped with the increased fees.

Tuesday's Washington Post article, she said, incorrectly left the impression
the deficit couldn't be made up.

 Do you have an opinion about this story?
Share it with other readers in our CAA Discussion Forums

http://www.californiaaviation.org/dc/dcboard.php

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