It will likely be at least a few more months, and possibly until the end of the year, before anyone knows if airlines will be able to fly from Paine Field.
The Federal Aviation Administration says it needs more time to provide a thorough response to the 900 c
omments it received regarding an environmental study done in 2009.
A decision on whether to certify Paine Field for passenger flights will be part of that response.
The extension is the latest of many announced by the agency since the public comment period on the study ended in February 2010.
If the work takes until the end of the year, the FAA will have taken almost two years to review and respond to the comments.
Two airlines, Horizon Air of Seattle and AllegiantAir of Las Vegas, have asked to fly from Paine Field. Allegiant first contacted Paine Field in May 2008, more than three years ago. Horizon made its intentions known in October of that year.
So far, the airlines have persevered through the delays, saying that it makes no difference in their intentions.
This time, the response from Horizon was a little more noncommittal.
“We’ll evaluate the economic and market conditions when the (FAA’s) report has been completed,” said Bobbie Egan, a spokeswoman for Alaska Airlines, which operates Horizon Air.
Jordan McGee, a spokeswoman for AllegiantAir, said the delays would not likely have an effect, but that the airline would evaluate the demand for service when the time comes.
“I can’t say it’s hindering our plans at all and we’re always looking for opportunities,” she said. “We’re fairly flexible about when we start service.”
Allegiant proposes to start with four flights per week the first year, increasing to 20 in five years. Horizon proposes to start with 12 flights a day and increase to 20 by the fifth year, or 140 per week.
The study concluded that this number of flights would not have a significant effect on noise, auto traffic or pollution around the airport. Opponents disagreed, contending that starting flights at the airport could open the door to many more in the future.
The delay in issuing the FAA report isn’t necessarily a bad thing, said Mike Fergus, a spokesman for the agency’s regional office in Renton.
“The staff is being very diligent in ensuring that all comments received are reflected and addressed properly and accurately in the final product,” Fergus said.
The staff also has been busy working on other projects, he said.
Reaction from groups that support and oppose passenger flights at the airport was one of continued patience.
“It’s obvious they’re doing a thorough evaluation of all the data that was collected,” said Greg Tisdel, owner of Tiz’s Doors and spokesman for the pro-flights group, Fly From Everett. “It seems like they’re doing their job. What they do here will set a precedent for the next place they go, so they have to do it right, whatever right is.”
Greg Hauth, vice president of Save Our Communities, said the extra time could mean that the group’s objections are getting their due attention. The group submitted a 40-page response to the study.
“We’re pleased that they’re not rushing to a conclusion and we hope they’re diligently looking at the comments we wrote in response to the (study) and going through those carefully,” Hauth said. “But we don’t really know what’s going on.”
Snohomish County in 2009 estimated that a terminal large enough to handle the flights proposed by the two airlines could be built for about $3 million. The airlines would have to pay for the terminal, county officials said.
Peter Camp, an executive director for the county, said the delays won’t significantly affect the estimate.
“Our cost estimates were based on a conceptual design,” he said.
Bill Sheets: 425-339-3439; sheets@heraldnet.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
