Recently, the Mercury News reported that the San Jose International Airport is looking at major layoffs over the next 18 months. According to the FAA, San Jose has experienced a 14 percent decline in domestic departures over the past two years.
Director of Aviation Bill Sherry was quoted by the Mercury: “I’d love to keep staffing levels where they are, but unfortunately the growth isn’t there. This is a worldwide recesion, and we have to cut back.”
Timing is everything, and in San Jose, the timing is almost always wrong. Just last year, the city broke ground on a $1.3 billion expansion/modernization of the airport. Add to that, the airport will have a budget deficit of nearly $35 million in 2010! Great.
Through the telling of the story of the airport’s budget demise, the Mercury News (indirectly) provided the citizens of San Jose a great service. Buried in their article was the little-known fact that San Jose’s airport is “a stand-alone financial entity from the rest of the city.” Should this be the case? When an airplane lands in San Jose, shouldn’t the city get the money? (Or, at least some of it?)
Plans are to reduce the airport’s staff from 400 employees to 270. “You won’t see the lights go out, but it might take longer to replace that burned-out bulb. It’s a thousand different things that could happen.” (Airport spokesman David Vossbrink to the Mercury News.)
Let’s review the math…a 14 percent decline in domestic departures translates to an over 30 percent decline in the workforce? Something’s missing…
Pete,
Given the state of our economy and the fickle nature of airline industry financials, it’s best that the airport is an independent entity. Can you imagine the City having to step up to airport liabilities on top of our current $65/+ million deficit?
Some points of clarification about the Airport and the modernization project:
1. Federal law prohibits the diversion of airport revenues to non-airport uses. This is not news, either in San Jose or at any other airport in the nation. SJC does contribute revenue to City Hall, however, to pay for direct and indirect services, such as airport police and fire, overhead charges, and other administrative support.
2. Airport revenues cover the costs for both everyday operations and for our capital improvements. We pay off our long-term debt service with our operational income, just like you do for the mortgage on your house,. When income goes down, we have to tighten our belts, live within our budgets, and continue to pay off the mortgage.
3. Local tax money doesn’t pay for the airport. The people and businesses that use the airport pay for its operations and improvements.
4. We’re reducing staffing levels in stages over the next year and half so that we can be approximately proportionate to the level of passenger activity. This is not an exact science, and as we adjust to live within our means, we also have to do it carefully to take care of our passengers, airline partners, and our employees.
5. The current terminal modernization project is not adding more capacity or increasing the number of aircraft gates – it’s not an “expansion.” The new buildings will be larger, however, to provide more space for passenger comfort and convenience, including space for ticketing, security, and concessions, as well greater efficiency for airlines, TSA, and airport operations.
6. Airport improvements will serve the people of San Jose and Silicon Valley for the next half century or more, and our community, customers, airlines, and voters have been waiting for them for a long, long time. The modernization will replace Terminal C (built in the 1960s), renovate Terminal A (built in the 1980s), straighten and widen roadways for better access, and consolidate rental car operations in a new garage across from the new terminal for more convenience.
7. This is actually a great time to build the improvements. We’re getting excellent prices from a competitive bidding environment, and the new airport will be well-positioned for economic recover to attract flights and customers when it’s completed.
8. If anyone has a reliable crystal ball handy to tell us when the recession will be over and travel activity will come back, we sure would like to know it. Until then, we all have do the best we can with rapidly changing and uncertain information about the economy.
David Vossbrink
Communications Director
Mineta San Jose International Airport
dv********@sj*.org
Greg:
I beg to differ. What’s an airport anyway? (a landing strip and some buildings). The airlines pay for their staff and rent out terminal space. In theory, the airport could be a cash cow…In practice, it’s its own franchise.
The airport is a waste of 1000 prime acres in San Jose that can be utilized in a much more productive manner. Even being idle as a 1000 acre park would be a much better use of this land, since it will allow San Jose to build to meet its needs, not the needs of the FAA. Additionally, the quality of life in San Jose, and surrounding Santa Clara County will be tremendously improved.
Get rid of that useless albatross now.
Mr. Vossbrink points out that federal law prohibits the diversion of airport revenues to non-airport uses. Fine, let’s change the law, make it a part of the stimilus package.
Again, why does a 14% drop in flights translate to an over 30% reduction in staff? Mr. Vossbrink didn’t really address that question.
I, for one, was surprised to learn that the airport expansion isn’t really an “expansion” after all.
Wow. Vossbrink hasn’t lost his touch. He’s still covering up the bad news with positive bs like he use to do for Gonzales. It would be nice for the airport to have a spokesman with integrity or a moral compass.
Geez, Ron Gone, I was never a fan of Mayor Ron. But treating others in this column as you do brings to question your integrity and moral compass.
I love our airport! (sarcasm). To bad the title wasn’t “San Jose staff to cut airport.” But seriously, #4 said it perfectly. Let’s start planning the eventual relocation of SJC operations to either Moffet, Gilroy/Hollister, or the central valley. The new terminal could be adaptively reused into residential, office and/or retail space, with the runways and tarmac transformed into a beautiful urban park. Just a thought.
#8—move The Norman Y. Mineta San Jose Intergalactic Airport to THE CENTRAL VALLEY?
#9,
You must be a full-fledged member of AARP. Ever hear of high-speed rail or maglev transportation? There speeds (200-360 mph) make long “intergalactic” distances seem sort.
#10—yeah, right, Einstein! Who is going to fly to the central valley and take a train (which won’t exist for another 20 years minumum) to get to SJ? They’ll just fly to SFO or Oakland.
#4 Not much can be said about that ignorant comment.
#5 Just what is this connection between a reduced number of flights, and the number of layoffs? Are you saying there should there be fewer? More? I don’t see why there is a connection. I wouldn’t even assume that 14% fewer flights is the same as 14% fewer passengers either. I would think parking, concessions, rental car and cab revenues are also down. All this affects the number of cuts.
#8 And Hollister, Moffett and CV all want someone else’s large commercial airport. How many lifetimes can you wait getting those approvals from literally 100s of agencies, commissions, etc?
#10 Certainly heard of them. How are they relevant to this topic. And they would be paid for how? Of course, more bonds.