|
The King County
Executive is seriously considering sale of Boeing Field
to the Port of Seattle, according to reliable sources & County
documents made available to Truth
in Aviation. County & Port
staff have been negotiating for the last several months.
Although Robert Burke, the Airport Director,
is meeting weekly with Port staff to work out details of
a transfer, Executive staff have stoutly denied to County
Council members and the public that there is any interest
in sale or other transfer of the South Seattle facility.
As recently as August 1, a Boeing Field staff member involved
in Airport planning wrote in a letter to Beacon Hill activist
Bill Mallow that "speculation about any 'sale' to
the Port or any outcome is very premature".
Members of the Council plead ignorance.
Councilmember Dwight Pelz (D-7) whose district is heavily
hit by Boeing
Field traffic, wrote in mid-Summer to a constituent, saying
that "I have heard this rumor but it is not substantiated.
It makes no sense to me". Councilmember Rob McKenna (R-6),
asked in late June if he’d heard the report about a sale,
said no, he hadn't, and seemed genuinely surprised. He
said because BFI was a source of revenue for the county,
a sale didn't seem likely to him.
It's 'sensitive', so please don't
tell!
However,
e-mails sent by County staffer Cal Hoggard make it clear
that sale is very much on the agenda. On 6 June
of this year, Mr Hoggard e-mailed to an employee of the
City of Austin, Texas, to inquire about that city's experience
in disposing of a local airport. Mr Hoggard's message reads,
in part, "A question of whether it would be advisable to
sell BFI to the Port of Seattle must be dispensed with.
My questions go to whether the experience the City of Austin
has had with RMMA [local airport at Austin] could be useful
in our contest... As you can imagine, this is a sensitive
subject so I would appreciate it if you could keep the
fact that we are evaluating this confidential."
In another e-mail, this time to
a staffer with the City of New York, sent on 7 July,
Mr Hoggard commented, "...
We are exploring the feasibility of a lease, sale or swap
with the Port for Boeing Field ... We would also hope that
the Port could operate the two airfields together in a
fashion that would bring benefits to the region that might
otherwise be missed with the separate operations."
A similar message was sent by Mr Hoggard to a recipient
in Denver, Colorado, on 14 May.
Mr Hoggard was formerly an assistant
to Mr Sims. He is now "Special Projects Manager"
in the Deputy Director's Office, County Department of
Transportation. The
Airport is under that Department.
Cash Cow for Port, To Cover More Runway Bonds?
Boeing
Field is a potential source of new revenue for a cash-strapped
Port of Seattle.
Any new revenue source would allow
the "gnomes of Sea-Tac" to
issue even more revenue bonds, the only remaining untapped
source of third-runway construction money, now that the
Port has decided to maximize its real-estate tax on King
County property.
A quick study done by the Seattle
Council on Airport Affairs in February 2002 showed that
Boeing Field could produce
a good deal more revenue than at present.
For example, BFI does not charge landing
fees to many users--aircraft classified as "general aviation"
pay
no fees. This category is not just small, single-engine
"hobby" aircraft--the
largest corporate jets are included as well. The County
is short of money, but doesn’t charge millionaires
for use of its airport.
The rate structure for aircraft that
DO pay landing fees has not been reviewed since the early
1970s. SCAA research revealed that the County charged
$0.35 per 1000 pounds landing weight for cargo and passenger
revenue aircraft, resulting in annual revenues between
$200,000 and $300,000 in recent years. Sea-Tac Airport,
in contrast, at the same time was charging $1.50 per
1000
pounds, for ALL landings. Thus, if the Port takes control
of BFI, it could easily raise fees to the point where
it pockets another $1 million to $1.5 million per year,
just
on fees on planes that do pay landing fees now. Fees
for general
aviation would be extra.
Boeing Field is far below market for
fueling fees, which are charged to those who buy aviation
fuel
on site: the present 5 cents per gallon could easily be
raised to more realistic levels, given that this is essentially
a monopoly situation.
County staff have identified increases
in fueling fees & increases
in space rental as the two big items for future revenue
growth. Mr Hoggard wrote in a memo to a Boeing Field staff
member on 30 June,"The greatest potential revenue is space
rent and fuel flowage." Why would the County be interested
in identifying ways to increase revenues & at the same
time consider transferring the airport to the Port of Seattle?
|
