News Archive

AOPA challenges San Jose’s application for federal airport funds to protect general aviation interests in the Silicon Valley

The 350,000-member Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association has taken action that could cut off federal funds to San Jose International Airport (SJC) and stop planned airport construction.

In a filing with the Federal Aviation Administration, AOPA has opposed San Jose’s application to impose a $3 passenger facility charge (PFC) to raise some $13 million for airport construction and noise monitoring. AOPA has also challenged San Jose’s continued eligibility to receive federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds. Since 1982, San Jose has received more than $200 million in AIP and PFC funds.

“San Jose has been using these funds to enforce what AOPA believes is an illegal curfew,” said Bill Dunn, AOPA vice president of regional affairs. “The airport shouldn’t receive any more federal funds until it complies with federal guidelines.”

While AOPA contends that the city ordinance establishing a nighttime flight curfew based on aircraft weight is illegal under federal law and a violation of city agreements (“grant assurances”) with the federal government, the pilots’ association concedes that a larger issue is at stake.

“The current San Jose administration has broken longstanding promises and cut off dialogue about the future of general aviation in the Silicon Valley,” said Dunn. “We are about to be forced off SJC. We have to protect the interests of our members and the GA community.”

SJC to displace general aviation

At issue are San Jose’s expansion plans. The SJC master plan calls for extending runways, building more passenger terminals, and expanding cargo operations. This expansion will take over land currently being used for general aviation operations and hangars.

The city also plans to divert and relocate many GA aircraft to reliever airports in order to create enough capacity at SJC to handle the anticipated large increase in airline and cargo flights.

Throughout this planning process, area pilots and AOPA made it clear they would not accept being displaced from the airport unless they could get comparable service and facilities at a convenient reliever airport.

The designated reliever airport for the area is Santa Clara County-owned Reid-Hillview Airport (RHV), five miles east of San Jose International.

But the county is a reluctant landlord. For years, it tried to close the airport and reversed course in 1996 only following pressure from local pilot groups, the business community, the Federal Aviation Administration, the city of San Jose, and AOPA. Even San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales (then a Santa Clara County supervisor) voted to keep Reid-Hillview open, in part because of its importance as the key reliever airport to San Jose International.

However, the county does not have the resources or the will to provide comparable facilities and services at RHV for general aviation aircraft displaced from San Jose International.

San Jose had committed to improving Reid-Hillview Airport

Recognizing that, the San Jose City Council and former Mayor Susan Hammer had promised the city would acquire operational control of Reid-Hillview so that San Jose airport funds could be used for the reliever airport.

Now the city has backed away from that commitment.

“San Jose is about to start construction that will displace GA aircraft, with no assurance that there will be an adequate reliever airport to accommodate them over the long term,” said AOPA’s Dunn. “We can’t let that happen.”

That’s why AOPA took the unprecedented action of challenging San Jose’s PFC application.

SJC noise ordinance illegal

Specifically, AOPA contends that a city airport noise ordinance is illegal. That ordinance mandates a nighttime curfew of 11 p.m. to 6:30 a.m. for some jet aircraft, based upon weight.

When the city accepted federal funds, it agreed to abide by the Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA), which in essence requires that the FAA approve noise regulations. San Jose also agreed that the airport would be available at all times for public use on fair and reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination.

In fact, the FAA has disapproved the curfew as unsubstantiated. Despite the FAA’s disapproval, the city continues to enforce it. That constitutes discrimination against a class of airport user. And if the city is not complying with ANCA, the law requires the FAA administrator to terminate the airport’s authority to collect passenger facility charges.

AOPA also challenges SJC draft environmental impact statement

AOPA has also challenged San Jose’s draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on the SJC expansion plan, telling the U.S. Department of Transportation that the draft EIS “does not adequately evaluate or protect the interests of general aviation, in general, and the operators of the aircraft based at San Jose International Airport, in particular.” Without an approved EIS, San Jose cannot proceed with construction plans.

“We’re not trying to be unreasonable,” said Dunn. “We’re just trying to get the city to live up to its commitment to provide adequate facilities for all aviation users.”

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, based outside Washington, D.C., represents more than 350,000 pilots who own or fly three quarters of the nation’s 192,000 general aviation aircraft.

More than 44,000 California pilots are AOPA members.

99-3-051

August 31, 1999