this is the largest plane that has ever landed at this rather small airport. It's an older, shorter, wing-tip-less variant of the 737, configured to operate as a private jet for a Texas oil company, and it just barely fits under the airport's maximum width requirements. Unless something changes, and soon, it will retain that largest landing record forever. That's because this airport, just 5 minutes out of the famous glitzy ski town of Aspen, is stuck in limbo between ultimatum by the federal government and a local voter base reluctant to give in to Washington's demands. Aspen is known for many things: great skiing, cosmopolitan amenities, celebrity sightings, long considered one of North America's premier ski destinations. It's home to Michelin-star restaurants and seemingly far over-indexed in designer stores for a town of less than 10,000 permanent residents. Yet, while the town has grown in acclaim, population, and opulence over the decades, the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport has remained largely the same. Its passenger terminal, once acclaimed as the first building in

the US to use passive solar heating opened in 1976 and hasn't changed much since its runway. Meanwhile, it was last widened in 1983, and it's this very element that's central to its current quagmire. For decades, this runway and the idea of making it bigger has been a point of local contention. 30 years ago, a proposed expansion failed in part because of widespread fear and local opposition towards bringing bigger planes here, specifically 737s, largely voiced and led by the famous Gonzo journalist Hunter Thompson. This created a problem; without expansion, the airport couldn't allow bigger, newer planes, and the planes it could allow weren't enough to meet growing demand and the changing fleet mixes of commercial airlines. So, in 1999, the Federal Aviation Administration approved a modification of standards that allowed the airport to operate as a Design Group 3 airport, essentially permitting it to operate with planes larger than the physical layout of the airport would normally allow. But they'd have to add some caveats. You see, Aspen

Airport is nestled in a narrow valley 8,000 ft or 2500 m above sea level. That makes it the second highest commercial airport in the US. Flat land barely exists here in the middle of the Rocky Mountains, as most formidable peaks. Flat land was artificially leveled to create the airport in the first place, but the spot used is still stuck between mountains to the west and a river to the east. So under those constraints, the separation between the airport's taxiway and runway is just 320 ft or 100 m, far less than the 400 or 120 normally required for an airport to earn a Design Group 3 classification. To maintain safe separation between planes on the taxiway and planes on the runway, the FAA therefore requires that the airport caps its maximum wingspan at 95 ft or 29 m, rather than the typical 118 allowed in Design Group 3. 95 ft is not much in terms of aircraft wingspans; it excludes every single mainline aircraft in the United.

American and Delta's fleets, and plenty of regional jets as well, but there are plenty of other constraints too, imposed by the unique geography surrounding the airport, combined with the thin high-altitude air. For example, aircraft need certain high-performance capabilities to ensure they're able to safely clear the mountains to the south of the runway when conducting an aborted landing at the last minute due to wind shear or other issues. Similarly, commercial pilots need special training to operate in set terrain and with all the exceptional features of the airport. For example, uniquely departing aircraft take off towards landing aircraft rather than away, like at almost every other commercial airport, and those inbound aircraft descend at a rather dramatic rate of up to 6% rather than the 3% more commonly used. So, in practice, combining all these constraints, the aircraft and airlines operating in Aspen have been narrowed down to one and one, the CRJ700 by SkyWest Airlines. SkyWest is then a subcontractor that operates flights under the Delta, American, or United brands on their behalf. But despite all

its uniqueness at the end of the day bureaucratically. Aspen Airport is just another one of the 5200 public use airports in the US. Each of which are regulated and overseen by the Federal Aviation Administration. Every one of those public use airports is part of the wide network of the national integrated plan of airports, which makes them eligible for federal money. The FAA funds in two ways. First, through entitlements, which is money doled out to all airports based on traffic and the federal piece of the pie they are entitled to receive. And then discretionary, which comes in the form of grants and selective funding. Since 1982, the Aspen Airport has received $116.5 million from the FAA. And in the past two years, $12 million has been allocated just for runway repairs. And of course, there are strings attached to the money that the FAA gives. In this case, they're called grant assurances. It's in this 20-page document that the agency lays out its desires to make sure its

Investments are solid and also funding projects the way they want them to be funded. For example, number 19 says the airport will operate in a safe and serviceable system. This has proved a problem for Aspen because its runway, its single runway that services all traffic both inbound and outbound, is teetering on unsafe. It closed for 2 weeks in May 2022, then another two in 2023 for repaving projects on the taxiway and runway that were completed to meet the FAA's grant obligations. At the time, officials pulled out a 14-inch runway core sample, and the bottom 7 inches of it fell apart when it was extracted, indicating not only surface issues but confirming subgradient degradation, especially in the area of the runway where planes typically land. Then in 2024, the runway closed for three more weeks for more repairs: crack sealing, repaving, and pavement replacement in specific areas like here and here. Airports constantly undergo maintenance, with major hubs repaving their own runways.

nearly every decade, but typically this is done at night and staggered in phases to maintain at least some operations. Shutting down entirely, like in Pickin County, is far rare, but because the repairs are primarily superficial, future extended closures and unexpected ones are all but guaranteed. If the runway is not fully replaced, the FAA doesn't want to keep doing this. In fact, they've said this outright: With the expenditure of $18.5 million on runway maintenance, we will not invest additional funding to maintain the existing runway and taxiway pavement. The next FAA investment will be to reconstruct the runway in the location shown on the approved ALP. Basically, they're not going to give any more money to fix the runway; they'll only pay to replace it. But the county has a plan for this. It's called the Airport Layout Plan, in fact its approved ALP, the one currently filed with the FAA who approves all ALPs, included a new green terminal with fewer gates, a sound berm, increased parking, and a widened runway with a separation of 400 ft from

the taxiway compared to the existing 320 ft. These plans were approved by County Commissioners in 2015 and then by the FAA in 2016. But what should have been case closed and development plans put into place was then really only the beginning. It's all down to these 80 ft. That's because with 400t separation, the airport would get upgraded to a full Design Group 3 status, no modification of Standards necessary. Therefore, any aircraft with a wingspan under 118 ft could fly here without restriction. So, if they wanted to, and performance characteristics allowed, United Airlines, for example, could start flying comparatively massive 737s to Aspen, regardless of any sort of local legislation. Nothing could stop the airline, as the FAA prohibits any sort of discrimination of aircraft type beyond that necessary due to the physical constraints of an airport. This is the potential future that has residents up in arms locally. A hot-button debate has set off between the two futures: one where the runway and taxiway stay where they are, and one where they're moved 80.

ft further apart. The core of onsides argument is the simple fact that the FAA has intimated that a lack of redevelopment would mean the airport quote would never receive additional FAA funding. But outside of the FAA's demands, there are other potential benefits to allowing bigger planes. When picking County surveyed community members for what they wanted in a new airport, a key goal was reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, community members suggested negotiating with the FAA and Airlines to only bring airplanes with lower carbon emissions and noise pollution than the CRJ700. Supporters argue that allowing wider wingspans is essential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions altogether and that it's not even clear the 737s can handle flying in and out of Aspen. The current preferred replacement for the CRJ700, the Embraer 175, is a class 3 jet that can theoretically land here under the modification of standards after a long process of certification and software modifications to gain the performance characteristics needed for operation here. United has announced it

will begin service to Aspen on the E175 in Winter 2024, but this aircraft type is more polluting than the CRJ700. So, proponents argue that bigger wingspans could allow commercial carriers to introduce better models to the market. The Airbus A220, for example, has a slightly bigger passenger load than the Embraer and could boast less than half of the per-passenger mile carbon emissions than the CRJ700. Moreover, it's a newer airplane model that's quieter than the CRJ700 and might offer Aspen access to further markets thanks to its longer range. Both sides do ultimately agree that the airport's terminal should be upgraded. Currently, up to eight jets can sit on the ground simultaneously, and the new terminal proposal won't increase its size. In fact, it could have room for six or eight jets depending on the size. That's because community members and Picking County officials recommended introducing flex gates to the terminal. Essentially, the terminal could scale down to accommodate bigger jets like the Airbus A220, which would occupy two

spaces or scale up for smaller jets by limiting the number of commercial jets that would come through here. This new terminal would limit the airport's commercial service capacity regardless of the FAA's access requirements, which has made it amenable to a broader audience. It's a rare win-win proposal. A new terminal could support Aspen's environmentalist ethos, improve passengers' airport experience, and intuitively limit the airport's traffic, all of which has made it a rare point of consensus among the airport stakeholders. But that's where consensus ends. Leading the opposition is a group called Aspen Fly Right. This organization contends that the county doesn't actually need to build a bigger airport; it could just build a better one. Aspen Flyght is concerned about the effect those 80 ft would have on noise pollution and eventual crowding as development potentially creeps up in the Aspen area. As more people are flown in, they question the need for a bigger airport and the motives behind it. After all, GF Stream 650s, which have a wingspan

of 99 ft would be newly granted access to Aspen if the airport is widened, and the 650s are popular among Aspen's elite, with some new news outlets reporting that more than 30 people with real estate ties to the area are also owners of the $60 million plane. Taxpayers don't need to foot the bill for larger private planes to access Aspen, the group says. They think the private flyers should do so instead of relocating the runway. Aspen Flyright argues that the county could simply replace the current one in its spot, continue with status quo modification of standards, and in the lynchpin of the argument, do it all without federal funding. To do so, they say the county could take over the operations of the airport's fixed base operator, essentially the facilities used for private jets, from Atlantic Aviation, who runs the lucrative business right now, and earn $19 to $20 million per year, more than enough to fund repairs and future improvements. The idea of operating a commercial airport in America without FAA funding is essentially unheard of. The idea of an

American commercial airport being a profitable venture without outside money is essentially unprecedented. But the idea of operating your own FBO isn't all. Aspen needs to do is look to Jackson, Wyoming, its northern counterpart with similar trends in air traffic and management, most specifically a massively high ratio of private jet operations to commercial ones. Its county purchased the private aviation side of its airport for $26 million and assumed operations upon purchase. This year, it's projected to earn $5 million in revenue, according to county budget reports. So, the situation that Aspen Flyright proposes, playing chicken with the FAA, would be unprecedented. But on the other hand, if anyone could make this unprecedented scenario work, it would be Aspen. Well, on the commercial side, it's a fairly small regional airport. It sees some of the highest private jet traffic of any airport in the world, beating the numbers of countless cities, orders of magnitude larger. And Aspen Flyght isn't the only group fighting against the expanded layout. There's also Citizens Against Bigger Planes, whereas Flyright's tactic

is to function as a nonprofit that advocates for its preferred redevelopment alternative. Citizens against bigger planes want the electorate, the roughly 13,000 registered voters in Aspen, Snowmass, Woody Creek, and beyond, to help make the choice. And to do that, they've put it on the November ballot. The group collected enough signatures for a successful citizen petition that asks to amend the county's charter, taking away the county commissioner's right to approve the runway expansion and instead handing that decision to the voters, making them the only ones with the power to approve an expansion. But not to be outdone or see their power stripped, the Board of County Commissioners mounted their own defense by drafting ballot language that amends the same county charter to reaffirm their exclusive authority to approve runway expansion. Essentially, there are two competing and contradictory ballot measures, so there's a vote to maintain the status quo and a vote to set up another vote simultaneously. There's a web of competing interests beyond the duo of

anti-expansion groups. There's a third, the Coalition for a 21st-century airport, comprised of local leaders, former Council and commissioner members, and business executives in favor of the approval of the updated Alp with the widened separation. And on top of that, there's accusations of misinformation by all sides and disagreement on basic facts. For example, each side postures that their vision for the future will lead to lower emissions and less noise pollution, while nobody can agree on whether the current modification of standards would be removed and the airport downgraded if the runway were rebuilt in place. The voter base, meanwhile, is faced with a deluge of highly technical information relating to the intricacies of FAA grant funding, Alps aircraft design groups, and more. If it all seems confusing, it is. There are facts and then there are feelings behind the facts, and ultimately, it's a tricky decision between a certain future with what some considered undesired consequences or an uncertain one with unknown consequences as the electorate waits to decide on their preferred path forward.

the implications of an action are mounting up. For example, the second closest major airline hub to Aspen, behind United's in Denver, is Delta's in Salt Lake City. Back in 2019, the airline operated as many as three flights a day from the city, allowing easy, geographically convenient access to the broader Delta network. But come 2020 and the COVID pandemic, the airline cut service to Aspen altogether as it elected to ground its CRJ700 fleet as a cost-saving measure, leaving no aircraft left in its fleet to service the airport. While service has since returned, the airline has been steadily reducing its CRJ700 fleet and has cited this as to why it no longer services Aspen from Salt Lake City, rather only the less geographically convenient Los Angeles and Atlanta hubs. While this issue could theoretically be rectified with the upcoming introduction of E175 service to Aspen, other consequences are permanent. For example, in September, the airport missed out on a slice of $100 million in federal funding that could have been used to reduce the

cost of Redevelopment since the FAA considered them ineligible for the grant due to a lack of an approved alp and the lack of an Alp in funding therefore means the runway is continuing to degrade. Airport leadership has said that the longer they go without a replacement, the more frequent the closures for maintenance could become, and the less predictable the closures would be. This opens up the potential that maintenance would need to happen not in the spring or fall off Seasons when tourists are rare, but perhaps in the midst of winter, cutting off tourist access and therefore cutting out the core of the area's economy. The tale of Aspen airports is a familiar one in America. Federal and state governments are substantially responsible for infrastructure development in this country, and they believe they know best, but there are plenty of instances where these larger forms of government have gotten it wrong: interstates bifurcating communities in two or dams that create environmental catastrophes. Local electorates also believe they know best about what infrastructure is best in their local area, but there are also

plenty of instances where they've got it wrong. Train lines rerouted far beyond the direct path or parking spots prioritized over bike lanes. But through the process of sorting through the dispute of who has it right and wrong, everyone can lose. In Aspen, everyone wants a new terminal. Everyone wants a rebuilt runway. Yet neither can happen until the county can decide on the full plan. What's going on right now sounds on the surface like the right thing to do, is the process of determining which version of this piece of infrastructure is going to make the most number of people happy. But in a scenario where everyone can lose, it poses a question as to who and how many should be involved in determining the best path forward. Whatever the answer is, it appears when comparing the state of this country's airports, bridges, transit systems, and more to those around the world, that whatever the American answer is, it just isn't the right one. The two airport ballot measures in Picking County are just one small part of a very big, very consequential

American election nebula is hoping to help guide you through this tumult through its brand new original show, What to Follow USA. Each week, the team from TLDR News releases another episode designed to be the election news that appeals to you, at least the statistical average of who you, the viewer, is, which, if you're wondering, is a relatively young person who uses the internet a lot and also is on top of the major headlines of the election. Therefore, the show focuses more on deeper analysis and the stories that you haven't heard about but are worth knowing about. And this is just one part of a huge catalog of top-quality Nebula Originals. In fact, last Friday, Friday the 13th, Nebula released its latest fiction piece, Dracula's Ex-Girlfriend by Abigail Thorne. At the time of recording this, I actually haven't seen it yet since it's not done, but everything Abigail has made has been really good, so I'm really looking forward to this one. And the benefits of Nebula go beyond just its Originals. You

can also watch all the normal videos of over 200 handpicked top-quality creators, all without ads or sponsorship. So, if, for example, you want another interesting video about airports, just search airport, and there are plenty of options, and I guarantee they're all great. And the last benefit is that signing up for Nebula genuinely helps support creators. We earn far more for your view over there and also get a portion of your subscription revenue for as long as you stay subscribed. Tens of thousands of viewers are already on Nebula, so if you want to see why, you can do so for 40% off and help support us when you go to

The Huge Controversy Over Moving This Runway 80 Feet

Wendover Productions is all about explaining how our world works. From travel, to economics, to geography, to marketing and more, every video will leave you with a little better understanding of our world. New videos go out every other Tuesday.

The Huge Controversy Over Moving This Runway 80 Feet

The Huge Controversy Over Moving This Runway 80 Feet

스크립트