In his Dec. 6 Council testimony, Mr. Land made a number of noteworthy statements. We previously analyzed one of them at this link. We now analyze another one below.

Mr. Land: ...JetBlue reiterates its support for the [Airport] ordinance, the noise ordinance that we have defended, that we have given up assets to defend, and I remind the Council that the FAA recently as October this year, stated that proceeding with the FIS facility will in no way, no way whatsoever, jeopardize the ordinance.

[Scroll down for further below.]

In May 2001, an item appeared on the LB City Council agenda, proposing to let new LGB operators hold flight slots longer before flying them. City management and the City Attorney's office told Councilmembers and the public that doing so wouldn't affect LB's Airport ordinance because it didn't touch the ordinance itself, simply changed procedures for allocating existing flight slots under the ordinance.

The Council voted 8-1 (Carroll dissenting) to do this. Within days, JetBlue [which began operating from NYC's JFK airport in Feb. 2000] took all of LB Airport's then-vacant flight slots (27 out of then-41) for aircraft over 75,000 pounds. A few days later, LBREPORT.com learned that Long Beach officials had met with JetBlue representatives before agendizing the item and had basically tailored the agendized action to suit JetBlue. City officials didn't tell LB residents -- who'd be affected by the outcome -- that the result would likely fill all of LGB's then-vacant large aircraft flight slots, leaving no additional large aircraft flight slots to allocate to others.

Among those cheering at a May 23, 2001 Airport press event were Mayor Beverly O'Neill; Councilmembers Bonnie Lowenthal, Jerry Shultz, Frank Colonna, Jackie Kell and Laura Richardson-Batts; JetBlue CEO David Neeleman; City Manager Henry Taboada, LB Area Chamber of Commerce President Mike Murray and LB Airport Area Business Council chairman (and Airport Advisory Commission member) Curt Castagna. In podium remarks, JetBlue's Neeleman stated "And so, with the resolution that was passed by the City Council [on May 15], with their vision, we have now two years to implement these flights..." After the news conference, we asked Mr. Neeleman to elaborate on the process:

LBREPORT.com:So how did it work? Did you call Long Beach Airport? Can you give us kind of the outline?

Mr. Neeleman: Yeah...WinAir was based in Salt Lake City so a lot of our employees from Salt Lake worked for WinAir, so we contacted 'em and said hey who do we talk to, they hooked us up with Kristy [Ms. Ardizzone, a licensed pilot, was a member of LB's Mayor-chosen Airport Advisory Comm'n] and we came and made a visit and things just kind of snowballed from there.

LBREPORT.com: And after talking to Kristy, where were the points of contact in the city?

Mr. Neeleman: Now obviously the Mayor was leading the charge and then Jackie Kell kind of led the City Council. And then we met with each of the City Councilmembers and explained our story, you know, and said this isn't just any airline and this is quiet and this is really jobs and this is growth and for the most part everybody bought it.

LBREPORT.com: And then after talking to them [after making contact with the city] there was a discussion about amending the flight slot [rules] which was done and that did the deal?

Mr. Neeleman: Yes...

Advertisement

Advertisement Computer Repair Long Beach For FREE Computer Tip, click here.

Within days, the advice offered by LB city management and the City Attorney's office had proven itself terribly wrong. The Council's voted action did result in putting LB's Airport ordinance at real risk. Two carriers sought flight slots that the Airport no longer had, due to the Council's action that allocated all of the remainder to suit JetBlue. That triggered an FAA administrative proceeding that could have led to a court action in which the city had everything to lose: if the City were to lose its Airport ordinance, the outcome could expose Long Beach to unlimited numbers of flights at all hours on all runways.

LB Mayor O'Neill and Councilmembers went into damage control mode. They staged meetings in the 4th Council district and 8th Council districts. Before grim faced capacity crowds, city officials recited their support for LB's Airport ordinance that the Council's voted action had just put at risk. The photo below was taken May 2, 2002 at ELB's Minnie Gant Elementary school (4th Council district). An overflow crowd attended; the meeting ran non-stop from 6:30-8:30 p.m. Among those visible in the audience: the 4th district's next Councilmember, Patrick O'Donnell.

Advertisement

Advertisement

LB's City Attorney's office, assisted by specially-retained aviation counsel, managed to put together a settlement in large part due to the cooperation of JetBlue which gave up some of its flight slots. This undeniably benefited the city, but cynics would note that JetBlue has no self-interest in Long Beach losing its Airport ordinance [and has consistently voiced support for LB's Airport ordinance], perhaps because JetBlue holds the lion's share of large aircraft flight slots under the ordinance.

What the City Council did in 2001 left a scar with continuing consequences for Long Beach in 2017 and beyond.

On April 30, 2003, the FAA sent LB a letter (attached as Exhibit A to the City Attorney's Oct. 4, 2016 memo on the now pending customs facility issue.) The FAA letter said that the Council's May 2001 action (that let new LGB entrants hold flight slots longer before flying them) ran counter to federal access provisions. The FAA required the City Council to rescind its May 2001 action in the settlement, and under those circumstances the FAA said it continues to consider Long Beach Airport exempt under "grandfathering" provisions of the 1990 federal Airport Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA). That's important, because ANCA's grandfathering verbiage allows the city to continue to maintain its Airport ordinance. However, the FAA letter also included this sobering verbiage:

...At some point in the future, however, the FAA may be presented with a complaint from a third party under 14 C.F.R. Part 16, or many have reason to review Chapter 16.43 [LB's current Airport ordinance] from a compliance standpoint on its own initiative. The FAA thus reserves the right to review the consistency of [LB's Airport ordinance] with Federal law in the future...[T]he current finding that the settlement is a reasonable action under [LB's Airport ordinance] would not prevent an analysis of whether the provisions of [LB's Airport ordinance] themselves meet Federal access requirements, if that issue were to be raised...

The FAA recently reiterated this position in an Oct. 18, 2016 letter in response to an inquiry from LB's City Attorney office. In addition to reiterating that the agency continues to consider LB Airport grandfathered under ANCA (beneficial to the City), the FAA's letter again stated in pertinent part:

...[T]he FAA is not aware of any current airport access issues at LGB. Accordingly, the City's noise ordinance is grandfathered under ANCA...As stated in our 2003 [and a 2015 letter to JetBlue, attached as Exhibit B to the City Attorney's memo], if at some point in the future a potential new entrant carrier believes that the ordinance is a barrier to entry, that carrier would be free to challenge it by filing a complaint with the FAA under 14 C.F.R. part 16. In such a case, the City could defend the reasonableness of its ordinance, make modifications to the ordinance to facilitate market entry, or consider other courses of action. The FAA reserves the right to review such a complaint and the consistency of the noise ordinance with federal law.

Advertisement

Advertisement

So yes, JetBlue did indeed give up some of its flight slots and yes, its action facilitated settlement on a major issue beneficial to the city. But that settlement was made necessary because LB city officials took actions -- begun in secret on which the public was told an incomplete narrative at the time -- that basically suited JetBlue. JetBlue didn't want to put LB's Airport ordinance at risk, and neither did city officials...but the City Council's action did exactly that, despite assurances from city officials that the Council's action wouldn't do so.

The immediate fallout: in the 2004 election cycle, the public voted out two Mayor-endorsed incumbents in Council districts 4 and 8. Voters elected LBHUSH2 leader Rae Gabelich in the 8th district and Los Altos resident Patrick O'Donnell in the 4th district.

The subsequent fallout: Councilwoman Gabelich exited the Council under term-limits in mid-2012...and by 2013, internal Airport records (obtained by LBREPORT.com under the Public Records Act) show that Airport management was working -- without Council publicly voted authority -- to advance a customs facility sought by JetBlue. Airport management did tell LB's then-incumbent Councilmembers (who included then-Mayoral candidates Robert Garcia and Gerrie Schipske) what it was doing in memos dated Aug. 1, 2013 and November 14, 2013 but no Lng Beach Councilmembers told the public about this entering the 2014 LB election cycle...when it almost certainly would have become a major issue.

The internal records show that momentum on the customs facility stopped in or about January 2014 as the upcoming citywide elections approached. In Dec. 6, 2016 Council testimony, JetBlue's Sr. VP/Associate General Counsel Rob Land disclosed that the company "was urged by a prior Airport Director and a prior member of this Council to postpone our asking [for a customs facility"]. LBREPORT.com has asked Mr. Land by email to identify the now-prior Councilmember who did this; thus far, he hasn't done so. LBREPORT.com coverage with perspective detaling the city's 2013 non-transparent conduct (based in part on internal documents obtained under state freedom of information law) is at this link.

The 2014 election cycle brought to office five new Councilmembers to office (Gonzalez, Price, Mungo, Uranga, Richardson). On December 6, six Councilmembers -- Mungo (made motion), Price (seconded), Gonzalez, Pearce, Andrews and Richardson -- voted to authorize city staff to take actions in preparation for a Council decisional vote and set a date for that vote: Jan. 24, 2017. Neither of these Council actions were publicly agendized; the Council majority voted to take these actions during an item agendized by Councilmembers Uranga, Supernaw and Austin that simply sought a December 13 study session on the issue. The Council majority's Dec. 6 action effectively prevented the public from speaking to a December 13 city staff agendized item (now withdrawn as a result of the Council's Dec. 6 voted action) on whether to authorize the actions advancing the issue and didn't propose a date for a decisional vote. LBREPORT.com coverage here.

Retired Councilwoman Gabelich has submitted a complaint letter to the L.A. County District Attorney, alleging that the Council majority's action violated the Brown Open Meetings Act; the City Attorney's office denies this.

Developing.

Advertisement

Perspective / opinions expressed by LBREPORT.com, our contributors and/or our readers are not necessary those of our advertisers. We welcome our readers' comments/opinions 24/7 via Disqus, Facebook and moderate length letters and longer-form op-ed pieces submitted to us at mail@LBReport.com.