Lake Tahoe Airport on course to remain open without return of commercial service
By Kathryn Reed
Lake Tahoe Airport is not going to have commercial air service any time soon, if ever. Lake Tahoe Airport is not going to stop being an airport. Lake Tahoe Airport could be more than it is.
Those were the major points delivered Thursday night at a meeting about the master plan for the South Lake Tahoe airport.
Michael Hotaling with the consulting firm putting together the master plan for the city and FAA on May 29 went over issues that were brought up from the February meeting – which centered on making it more than a general aviation facility and closing it down.
Hotaling said to have commercial flights it would require a subsidy. Mammoth subsidizes its airport by $2.5 million a year. City Manager Nancy Kerry said she has been asking people at meetings if they think that is a wise use of city funds – assuming the city had that kind of cash – and the overwhelming response is “no”. The same outcome came Thursday night.
Lake Tahoe Airport is not apt to see commercial service any time soon. Photo/LTN file
When the airport had commercial service in the past there were subsidies as well as marketing support for some of the airlines.
The city is already spending $300,000 a year from the general fund to support the airport. This is down from a high of $600,000.
But the city is in no position to cough up money to support this type of enterprise when the few “extra” dollars it thought it would see this fiscal year are evaporating because of the dismal winter and potential loss of parking revenue.
“It doesn’t make sense for only city residents to fund this airport,” Kerry said.
She would like El Dorado and Douglas counties to have a financial stake because they benefit from people flying in.
The Federal Aviation Administration would have the ultimate say over whether the airport closes. And even it said “yes”, the city would have to repay the nearly $20 million in grants it has received from the federal agency.
Going forward, Hotaling said, the city needs to consider options for the airport beyond current uses.
“The niche could be catering to folks who already are coming here,” he said. This would involve enhancing the facilities in some manner – making it a destination of sorts.
More than a dozen of the nearly 80 people at the meeting had a question or comment.
Transportation beyond air service was a concern of several people. Some remarks had to do with how people get to other parts of Tahoe once they fly in. Others questioned the environmental impact of air service in terms of how will people get around once they are in Tahoe.
It was brought up how there is no bus service to the airport.
An air shuttle service between South Lake Tahoe and Sacramento and Reno was also broached. Kerry said this idea has been talked about but has not gotten off the ground.
One person suggested there be pilots’ quarters over hangars, as well as having the drive-up market stop at the airport and then be shuttled to their final destination.
Reducing the runway in some form – like shortening it – was an idea.
Sherry Miller, airport manager, said if that were to occur, then the airport would be less viable and the FAA may not approve doing this. Concerns are whether large firefighting aircraft would then be able to land, as well as safety concerns because of the air density involved during the summer.
“They don’t like airports to limit their use,” Miller said of the FAA.
The airport runways’ width have been reduce from 150 feet to 100 feet in recent years. This has allowed the city to bank stream environmental zone credits. But no one has come calling for them, so that commodity isn’t much of a revenue stream or incentive to get rid of more coverage.
More information about the airport master plan may be found online.
Wonder if some low and or zero emission vehicle event at the airport can diversify the facility more. Maybe a Tuesday thru Thursday event during June and or September. A maximum vehicle weight/stress formula (to prevent tarmac degradation) involving auto cross, slalom, skidpad, ect… type competitions can be held possibly.
Perry R. Obray, I agree, the airport is under utilized. Alot of things could be going on there other than just the occasional private aircraft coming and going. The parking lot could be used for community events of all types.
I like your idea for a zero emission vehicle event, now that would draw some people! Since the tower doesn’t look to be re opening any time soon, lets use that building. Possibly, with some modification to the roof, an observatory of the nightime sky.
I just think that the city got the place for one dollar and is NOW spending $300,000 a year to keep it going, which is half of what we used to pay, so we should make full use of it!
Suggested listening, Eric Burdon and the Animals , “Sky Pilot”, the long version is best. You have to be of certain age to really get into this song. Happy flying, OLS
$350,000 blown by bureaucrats on another senseless study funded by taxpayers to tell them what has been clearly known even by simpletons for over 20 years:
Lake Tahoe Airport is not going to have commercial air service any time soon, if ever. Lake Tahoe Airport is not going to stop being an airport. Lake Tahoe Airport could be more than it is.
The only ones who benefit from this brilliance are the consultants making another hefty deposit to their bank accounts. And of course, the bureaucrats who orchestrate the entire charade.
The airport has so much potential, but as with any bureaucracy, government couldn’t turn a nickel in profit if their lives depended upon it.
The key to the airport’s success is increasing utilization, promotion, and attracting business to the place.
What has the airport done to work towards these goals?
Nancy Kerry is the first city leader I have heard acknowledge the free ride the city gives to residents of the Nevada side and the unincorporated areas of El Dorado County. They benefit from the small economic effect the airport provides and from its availability in the event of a wildfire.
The city should insist that the airport be run by a Joint Powers Authority funded by all those who benefit from it, not just the poor suckers who live in the City of South Lake Tahoe. It’s time that the airport boosters who don’t live in the city step up and pay to support the it.
The most important item the new master plan can contain is a timeline and procedure for transferring it to a JPA.
“The key to the airport’s success is increasing utilization, promotion, and attracting business to the place.”
BK, seeing that any chance of having commercial air service is slim to none, at no fault to anyone other than the fact that it would never turn a profit for any airline. The only reason we had air service in the past was due to the situation before the airlines were deregulated. So I’m curious as to what you exactly mean by increasing utilization. Also you mention that the airport should increase promotion of itself. Wow, your actually advocating for MORE government?
Break down the cost of the $2.5 million how can that be , we charge landing fees like all airports do we don’t have any fuel sevice or any other service it’s just a stop for the small commercial jets to bring vistors in and out of Tahoe
Show me the $2.5 million break down. Sounds crazy to me !!
If the city could sell some or all of the airport for restoration (to the CTC, Nature Conservancy, etc), at a price equal to the market value of the runway SEZ coverage ($25-$100 million), would you take that deal over continuing to subsidize private jet flyers bound for Nevada to golf and gamble?
The people that use the airport need to pay for it. This “Study” that was done is just a farce and says exactly what most everyone already knew. And how much did the city pay for this valuable information? I bet that the next city council, and the next, and the next, to infinium, will all try to “reinvent the wheel” over and over with the same results. This is often refered to as insanity. It is insanity to keep throwing money at this. Maybe its time to recycle all of the previous studies that all say the exact same thing. Put them in a box, shake, pick one out, same story……go figure
So much for the plan to become a “destination” vacation spot…..
With the Vail Corp. being involved with Aspen Air & the success of those destination spots they serve, have the studies included the opinions of the businesses been asked for?
Stage 3 quiet turboprop aircraft cause no ore noise pollution that the private turbine aircraft landing & departing from the airport today….
Maybe the opinion of the council would be different, if they weren’t located on the airport property & the urging of the same people against usage of the area by off road enthusiasts & snowmobilers?
Sounds all to familiar to this pro aviation citizen.
Hey Steve, can you elaborate on the Vail/Aspen Air connection? I haven’t heard of that and am curious as to what exactly it is. Thanks
Steve, this is a destination location. But there are three airports within 1.25 hours of here and two airports that are just minutes further than SLT from the tourist corridor and one international airport. Why anyone, even a billionaire would fly in here over Carson or Minden is beyond me.
Now lets look at Aspen, it has, well nothing anywhere near it. Its hours from the closest interstate.
There is no comparison at all.
Your kidding, the 2.5 Mill is what the tourist improvement district in mamouth pays the airline to fly in there. Go figure the city paid 25k as their share of the study which was required by the FAA to be done every so oft. The rest was paid by the FAA
Reloman, the 25k that was paid is still too much. Id like to know how much has been paid over the last, say, 15 or 20 years on studies to determine the “feasibility” of this small, rural airport to support commercial air travel. As long as I have lived here its been an annual topic with the SLT City Council and every year the study gives the exact same response, “Not feasable or economically viable”. Im not kidding, look it up. I bet next year it will be the same. INSANITY, really?
Move the visitors center to the airport. Great access, parking, restrooms its even on the right side of the highway. Put in a dog walk, give them a map and a Tahoe Tap water bottle and call it done.
Maybe have people park there and shuttle them to weddings and events at Valhalla.
The city subsidizes the airport to the tune of 300,000 annually. But that pales to the 20 million that evidently has been put into the airport through, I assume, federal grants. Yes that is our tax money at work as well. Regardless, I hope Nancy doesn’t forget what she has noted in the above article- THAT PEOPLE OVERWHELMINGLY ARE NOT READY TO INCREASE THE AIRPORT SUBSIDY- now she should be asking do they support any subsidy. I’m liking Tahoe Dad’s suggestion even better. Here is a chance for the city to demonstrate it really wants to be the sustainable outdoor mecca the leaders keep talking about,
Race track at the “airport?” Bus service to the airport? More events at the airport? Promotion of the airport? Pilot quarters? Parking lot then shuttle? I’m sorry but none of these “ideas” will get back the $300 grand per year ($3 million every ten years.) I say put a for sale sign up; “Oracle Airport” sounds good to me Larry Ellison. How about selling it to the Washoe Tribe and let them redevelop the airport with an Indian Casino? Come on, we have plenty of Real Estate Agents in town. First $20 Million takes it!
Perhaps the airport should consider privatization to close the deficit. Let a private enterprise run it, like the ice rink.
I flew out of Tahoe for years in the 70’s to San Jose to see my parents and never thought that would end. $19.95 one way to San Jose. Times are different and have been for years. Fly to reno and drive up. To scary to fly here n the winter anyway. Turn the airport int a community park with softball and soccer fields and rent everything out for tournaments from all over California and Nevada. What a beautiful spot it would be and think of all the business it would bring to south Lake. In winter have cross country trails and other winter stuff. Also what a great first thing to see as tourists come into town.could be a real winner for all of us.
Rock I didn’t say the visitor center would be profitable. Just help to cut the red ink and supply a service to our visitors. You don’t think it would be GREEN to shuttle people to Valhalla? Compare this idea to the worthless water shuttle the TRPA wants.
From what I have read unless the city or someone pays the feds back it has to stay an airport. May as well try and make the best of it.
If you were trying to guide friends to town could you think of a more convenient spot to meet them?
There are some really great ideas in this blog. Unfortunatly nothing will change as this issue has been present for many, many years and the only thing that is different is the city offices are now there and the name of the restraunt has changed. I like the idea of having the Welcome To SLT rest stop with information, dog park, restrooms, parking.
One thing has changed and correct me if I’m wrong. I believe this is the first time a city official, other then Bill Crawford (thanks Bill) has been willing to state that the city does subsidize the airport. The standard line that I have heard over the years was that it was supported solely by user fees.
Sun. The shuttle might or might not work. We have Trollies now and they aren’t full. My hunch is that people will not want to park at the airport parking lot then get in a bus.